EVENTS

Do you deny that rape culture exists?

Rape culture is an attitude: that we show strength by abusing the weak, and that “weak” and “woman” are synonymous. It’s everywhere. And remember: Steubenville is just an ordinary town like a thousand others.

Damn, those are a disgusting bunch of tweets. I was disappointed that these rapists got away with what amounts to a slap on the wrist. What more proof of a rape culture do you need? I am disgusted with my species.

Rape culture starkly illustrates how women are valued, and it isn’t as human beings. And for all those who are raped but aren’t women, they’re “valued” in the same way, simply because they “allowed” themselves to be raped.

Every single fucking one of those tweets, every single CNN broadcast (which is just a tweet, after all), every single fucking rape apologist like you — you all give a great big ol’ Hee-Haw “fuck-you” to the one person hurt most: the victim. The person who was raped.

So no, Sweety, a few dozen tweets don’t prove diddly-poop. But, a few dozen tweets, plus the responses from major news organizations, plus Bozo-grade clowns like you defending all those other responses; all that proves a whole helluva lot. It proves rape victims aren’t as important as the rapists.

The idea that this Steubenville case somehow affirms the idea that society tolerates rape is utter insanity.

Riiiight. Because the fact that people knew about the rape and tried to cover it up has nothing to do with the toleration of rape. The fact that people are now trying to blame the victim for the conviction and subsequent minor sentencing of the criminals has nothing to do with the toleration of rape.

It’s just insane that we should believe nobody should excuse rape. Insanity, I tell you!

So how many dozen more do you need? Would you even be willing to take a look at them to confirm the amount? Or are you just completely invested in the idea that rape culture does not exist? If so, why?

I think Lachlan believes that if there’s a law against rape on the books, it must be that there is no rape culture, because culture is completely homogenous, and there can be no rape culture unless absolutely everyone is equally pro-rape at the same time all the time – otherwise we wouldn’t have laws against rape and no one would ever be convicted, but see: 2 guys from Steubenville were convicted when 4 guys sexually assaulted someone while 80 or more people watched. Then the local prosecutor tried to sweep it under the rug…but she was *un*successful.

If there was rape culture, there would never be a failed attempt at a cover up! [/lachlan]

Yeah, this is exactly like saying there’s no such thing as queer culture because straight conservative Christians aren’t openly boinking their same-gender neighbors in the street every sunny June weekend.

Huh… I read Brony’s post as a sarcastic response to post #1, largely because of “[h]ow are the cherries?”…

Could of also been wishful thinking that in this case ended up being a wish come true… :D

As to anyone denying rape culture… I just put out an ultimatum on my main Facebook. If any one of my friends shows even a tiny bit of sympathy for the rapists, tries even a little bit to blame the victim, and/or posts rape/”surprise sex” jokes (whether or not they are connected to the case), I won’t engage them; I will delete and block them. I’m holding to that on Twitter and in real life, too.

When a creationist uses the ‘reasoning’ PZ did, PZ lambastes the poor person. Who will lambaste PZ?

Oh, how about little old me?

PZ, how very dare you draw conclusions from misogynist, slut-shaming, victim-blaming tweets, without taking into accout the many supportive, comforting, and sympathetic tweets that the rape victim recieved from her fellow Steubenvilleites, which far outnumber the negative ones? I am strongly confident that jenny6833a will very shortly indeed provide this missing data to show you up, in the same way that I am strongly confident that jenny6833a is not a vile loathesome dihonest misogynist troll.

…

…

…

…any time now, jenny6833a…

======

The idea that this Steubenville case somehow affirms the idea that society tolerates rape is utter insanity.

Oh, no no no! Society does not tolerate rape! That would be horrible!

Rape is an intolerable crime for a woman to accuse a man of, even when the men took pictures of them committing rape!

Which makes it no different at all from all manner of small towns across the U.S. – they are in every single state, including those states people like to think are liberal sanctuaries. Don’t buy into this making such a big difference when it comes to rape culture, especially when it collides with sports culture. The same defense of fine young rapists happens every single day.

Speaking for myself, I abhor the idea that people are somehow managing to blame the victim in this, and excuse the vile actions of those young (searches mind for appropriately vile epithet) gentlemen.
I really can’t find anything rude enough to say about them.

“Culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.”

Based on what PZ posted, including the links, I have no reason the conclude that committing rape or approval of rape is characteristic of any social, ethnic, or age group in the United States.

A tiny minority within some (or even all) such groups may commit rape and a larger but still small minority may say silly stuff that sounds supportive of rape and rapists, but a minority is a minority and talk is cheap.

I continue to think that anyone making a broad generalization that rape culture exists needs far more and far better evidence than what was presented.

For the record, I too am sad that all three kids will suffer for thoughtless acts that shouldn’t have happened. However, I’m glad that all three are alive. I’d be a lot sadder if they’d run a car into a bridge abutment at 120 mph.

Kids make mistakes. C’est la vie. Some mistakes are more serious than others, and in this case I’m of the opinion that the verdict was just.

I’ll be happy to discuss the matter with anyone who has the decency to stick to what I’ve said, here and in #1, and will skip off-the-wall, baseless accusations.

The “real victim” was not the town.
The “real victims” weren’t the rapists whose lives were “ruined”.
The real crime wasn’t dragging the story into the public spotlight.

The real criminals were the rapists.
The other criminals were the people who tried to cover up the rape.
The real victim was the young woman who was raped.

The rapists should get down on their bloody knees and give prayers of thanks to the judge and whatever gods they believe in. They could have gotten adult sentences in adult Court and served them in an adult prison for rape and producing child pornography. Instead, they got 4-5 in a juvenile facility.

For the record, I too am sad that all three kids will suffer for thoughtless acts that shouldn’t have happened. However, I’m glad that all three are alive. I’d be a lot sadder if they’d run a car into a bridge abutment at 120 mph.

Kids make mistakes. C’est la vie. Some mistakes are more serious than others, and in this case I’m of the opinion that the verdict was just.

I don’t have time, so I’ll just send a big FUCK YOU jenny, for equating the victim and the rapists here among other bullshit you’ve managed to spout in just two comments.

For the record, I too am sad that all three kids will suffer for thoughtless acts that shouldn’t have happened. However, I’m glad that all three are alive. I’d be a lot sadder if they’d run a car into a bridge abutment at 120 mph.

For the record, I can state you don’t know the first thing about rape.

Stuebenville Ohio
Penn State
statistics, that tell us rape happens a lot yet only a minority of rapists go to trial and even fewer are convicted
The “jokes” we’ve all heard about rape
Dismissing documented rape with “Kids make mistakes. C’est la vie.”
Nope, no rape culture here.

Do you consider yourself part of the minority you posit? If the answer is no, then you’re disproving your own point, because this sort of statement is indicative of rape culture. It’s not just “committing” or “approving”. It’s excusing, minimizing and tolerating too.

Quick, which presidential candidate of a major political party with a realistic chance of winning the presidency was quoted during a campaign during the TWENTY-FIRST century making a joke about rape which ended with the punchline, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

Nope, no rape culture here. Just people–presidential candidates! Senators!–saying “silly things” which only SOUND “supportive of rape and rapists.”

One wonders what they would come up with if they went further than just SOUNDING supportive of rape and rapists and decided to cross into ACTUALLY SUPPORTING rape and rapists.

Maybe Jenny can enlighten us.

Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

No one here is confused about what evidence is or a burden of proof. You’ve managed to convince yourself that there is no such thing as rape culture. We get it. Your self-righteousness would be offensive anytime, but your assertion that what happened to the rapists and their victim is somehow all equally regrettable is beyond the pale when combined with your insufferable assumption of personal moral superiority.

Nah, all those messages of sympathy for the fine young rapists and the myriad of “drunk slut”, “bitch wanted it”, “bitch deserved it” and “if I come across the bitch it will be a homicide”, just silliness. Ya know, lighthearted fun.

Well, Caine, but rape is a crime. I mean, it’s on the books and everything. Most people*, speaking in the abstract, will even acknowledge that it’s a Bad Thing. You know, assuming the victim’s white and her prior virginity can be established, and the rapist’s a stranger with no social clout.

For the record, I too am sad that all three kids will suffer for thoughtless acts that shouldn’t have happened. However, I’m glad that all three are alive. I’d be a lot sadder if they’d run a car into a bridge abutment at 120 mph.

Kids make mistakes. C’est la vie. Some mistakes are more serious than others, and in this case I’m of the opinion that the verdict was just.

If only their football coach got his way, all of this would have been swept away, like hundreds if not thousands of similar cases. The only kid suffering would be the raped teenaged girl, ostracized for being a slut. Instead, three kids are suffering.

This would not even be an issue if those two teenaged boys decided to act decently and help get her home safely and if this party was not full of other who either actively cheered on the assault or passively accepted what was happening.

But this is showing one thing, jenny6833a. It shows that you are a horrid human. C’est la vie. :-)

“Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.

Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape. Rape culture has been used to model behavior within social groups, including prison systems where prison rape is common and conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire countries have also been alleged to be rape cultures.[1][2][3][4][5]”

You said that you felt sorry for the rapists. You described the rape as a “mistake” (how does that work, exactly? “Whoops, I slipped and fell up her vagina?”) and remarks blaming the victim as “silly”, which is literally the mildest condemnatory adjective in the English language. You’re choosing to ignore evidence, with the ridiculous justification that minorities don’t count as part of culture – by that logic, I could argue that watching the Superbowl is not part of American culture.

Oh, and also, you walked past mountains of literature on rape and rape culture, from the academic to the persuasive to the anecdotal to the scientific, including a fair amount right here at FTB, and chose to park your hyper-skepticism on the doorstep of a biologist making a fifty-eight word post linking to someone else’s collection of posts on social media sites.

And then you have the gall to imply we’re bad people for not calmly debating you? (What are we supposed to be discussing, anyway? If we take you at your word, you have no opinion about whether or not rape culture exists.)

You, right here, are believing and behaving in ways that protect, excuse, and enable rapists. When we talk about rape culture, we’re talking about you.

No, I can not. The evidence seems clear. Rape was committed. Large numbers of people reacted by making excuses for it and dismissing it. Apparently rape culture exists.

But it confuses me. Everyone seems to be in such agreement that rape is the most heinous of all crimes and that rapists are the scum of the Earth, with only child-rapists being worse. Reactions to accusations of rape should be along the lines of people instinctively distancing themselves from the accused, reaffirming their own moral perfection by shunning them. This is human behaviour as I understand it.

Yet this does not happen. People’s actions are in contradiction to their stated beliefs. Confusing. If someone recognises that rape is a bad thing, why do they not treat it like they do other bad things? Are they lying about considering it a bad thing? Why do they bother? People frequently claim that bad things are good things, and then proceed to act like those bad things are good things. Why are they hypocrites on this particular issue?

I believe that rape culture exists. But I do not understand how or why.

Rape itself is actually easier to understand. Well. Not understand. I do not understand how people can treat others like toys and find their helplessness amusing. But I know that that is how people behave. I have seen it firsthand. It fits my understanding of what people are like, which is to say, it fits my understanding that most of them are sadistic savages with no redeeming features. Evil does not confuse me. Insincere claims to goodness do.

Everyone seems to be in such agreement that rape is the most heinous of all crimes and that rapists are the scum of the Earth, with only child-rapists being worse.

I think maybe this actually works the opposite way at times: Rape is such a horrible crime that anyone who does it must be a horrible person. Joe isn’t a horrible person, ergo he can’t be a rapist and any woman who accuses him of rape must be lying.

There’s also another thing. I think it has to do with viewing women as possessions. The person harmed by a rape is not the woman, but whomever the woman belongs to and perhaps the large community she’s part of. Consequently, if the rapist is a member of the community, it’s not that bad. That’s what she’s there for. It only really becomes a crime if the rapist is an outsider; racially, economically, or whatever.
I think that’s why the “stranger in a dark alley” is the preferred description of rape, not “one of your friends at a party with your other friends doing nothing to stop it.” The first is rape, the other a misunderstanding.

I feel like this idea is a bit unformed, but I hope you understand what I’m getting at.

I sometimes wonder if the guys who act as rape apologists would be prepared to apply that logic if the shoe was on the other foot.
Let’s just say you’re a good looking guy on a night out, dressed ‘provocatively’ in tight t-shirt and jeans or clothes that leave little to the imagination. Maybe you’ve had a few too many drinks and are about ready to pass out. Maybe you took a route home down a dark alley in the wrong part of town.
Does this mean you were to blame if someone you wouldn’t touch with a 20 foot pole when sober ripped your clothes off and violated your every orifice, perhaps in a group?
I wonder how many of these guys (and it’s usually the guys) would still be blaming the victim if they applied the self-same logic to their own saturday nights?

There’s also another thing. I think it has to do with viewing women as possessions. The person harmed by a rape is not the woman, but whomever the woman belongs to and perhaps the large community she’s part of.

Richmond, [Ma’Lik’s father] who did not raise his son, spoke to the victim’s family, saying, “I’m sorry for what you all had to go through. I hope somewhere in your hearts that you can forgive Trent and Ma’Lik for the pain they have caused your daughter.”

Rape culture is believing that all your male friends and community members are good people and therefore can’t possibly be rapists, rapists are obviously those other kinds/colours of people who lurk in alleyways after dark. That is why May’s father apologises to the two boys charged. Their parents are probably friends.
I doubt if this will improve anytime soon but the feminist fight for equal rights must go on.

Just to add to what others have said, a major part of rape culture involves the abuse of human ingenuity to constantly redefine what rape is – always so that it doesn’t include what your friend just did or what you do yourself.

There is a massive industry in relabelling criminal behaviour as immaturity, imperfect manners, miscommunication. It goes right along with the efforts to find out in lurid detail what the victim did wrong so as to cause the rape.

With those two in place there’s no need for anyone to go about actively promoting rape as a social good.

It can be informative, though, to present such apologists with what the law actually says where they live and ask them why they never checked that out in the course of becoming Top World Expert on the subject.

For the record, I too am sad that all three kids will suffer for thoughtless acts that shouldn’t have happened. However, I’m glad that all three are alive. I’d be a lot sadder if they’d run a car into a bridge abutment at 120 mph.

Really? This is all about your reaction to the crime? It’s really nice to see you have empathy for the victim. (Yes: that’s singular. There was only one victim. And it wasn’t to two young men who were found guilty of rape. They’re not victims. They’re criminals.) Good job making it all about you.

For the record, those weren’t “thoughtless acts.” It was rape. Those young men chose to violate an incapacitated young woman. Guess which word is important? (HINT: if you think it’s “incapacitated,” you might want to have your sense of outrage calibrated). That’s right! “Chose.” So no, jenny6833a, this wasn’t a thoughtless act that led to three victims like you claim. There was a choice. The two criminals made the choice. The victim had no choice. That’s why it’s rape.

The acceptance of rape has permeated our society to the point people like you claim it’s not part of our culture in the same breath used to describe the criminals as victims. The very fact you chose (there’s that word again!) to cast the criminals as victims is a demonstration of the very rape culture you deny.

No. Did you pay attention to the trial? Did you see the texts that these guys were sending during and after the attack? At every point in time, they were fully aware that they were doing something wrong. This was not a mistake. This was a carefully calculated and malicious crime. No one who makes an innocent mistake brags about how his coach is going to “take care of it for me” after the fact. These boys have not showed one iota of remorse for what they’ve done.

The decision to rape another human being is not a ‘mistake.’ They were not coerced into raping her. They were not manipulated into raping her. They assumed that, since they were football heroes, that they could make the decision to rape a young woman and would escape all repercussions. They were not mistaken, they are rapists.

CNN focusing solely on how the verdict will affect the rapists’ “promising futures” = rape culture

Total strangers sending death threats to a crime victim = rape culture

Just noting that these aren’t unrelated. Total strangers, whose sympathies lie all with the promising young rapists who cried* (at the verdict) as displayed and spread media-wide by CNN, are attacking the victim for ruining THEIR lives. Where’s the news coverage comparing the defendants’ callous texts and demeanor through every phase up to now, or even interviewing advocates or survivors of similar crimes about how sitting through a victim-blaming trial affected them? Where are the comparisons to Penn State or to military cover-ups, or even mentioning in mainstream coverage that most rapes never get reported due to just this sort of revictimizing legal approach? Where’s the warning that this could happen in your town too? (Seriously, it’s mainstream media. EVERYTHING gets covered as ‘This could happen to YOU!’)

And the same conversation, the lack of reaction to those blaming the victim, is happening over on the dog piling thread. Lack of response is acquiescence; silence makes it look like the misogynist victim-blaming asshats are the cultural norm.

In fact, domestic violence is two-to-four times as prevalent in police offer families as it is in the general population. Yikes.

The National Center for Women & Policing report that two studies have found that at least forty percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to ten percent of families in the general population.

[…]

One of the most disturbing parts is that police departments often handle cases of police family violence informally; without an “official report, investigation, or even check of the victim’s safety.”

FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist, with a perchant for pachyderm punditry)says

I see rape culture everyday, or at least the tiny, oh so excusable, oh so dismissible, oh so deniable beginnings of it anyway.

My daughter is five, she started school this year. I pay attention, close attention, to how she interacts with her peers. It fascinates me, the behaviour of youngsters, because I never had anything to do with them until she was born. And I’ve noticed something that occurs almost every time there’s a group of preppies together that scares the shit out of me.

Inevitably there’s a couple of kids getting really rambunctious. Sometimes that exuberance is expressed by running and yelling and no one is involved but the child doing it. But sometimes they want others to join them, they follow other kids and won’t leave them alone. They tickle, or tease, or shout the rules to the game, or any manner of things, and won’t stop no matter what the target says or does.

This is not rape culture, this is kids being kids and not understanding boundaries.

What is rape culture, is the unwillingness of the supervising adults to put a stop to it. Sure, if there’s punching or pushing someone will step in, or if the target gets to the point of tears. But here’s the thing: the first ‘No’ should be enough.

How can we expect our children to understand bodily autonomy, consent and meaningful boundaries when we set the bar at violence and tears? And to be clear, it is almost always the boys who are doing this, the girls get pulled up a lot sooner, get told to play nice a lot more forcefully.

So yeah, I don’t deny rape culture exists.

It starts long before sex even exists as a concept in their minds.

It starts when we fail to teach the very young to respect that first ‘No’.

Fingering a girl when she is passed out drunk is not an accident. It is deliberate and purposeful violation of that girl. See, people round here have this funny idea that everyone gets to say what goes into any of their orifices, and who gets to put it there. Any violation of that rule is rape. Fuck you, you rape-apologising arsehole.

The alleged victim is not expected to testify when the trial begins in Jefferson County juvenile court — before outside judge Tom Lipps took over for a recused judge with ties to the famed Steubenville High football teach, a West Virginia judge blocked a subpoena of the girl and two other witnesses called by the defense. But that hasn’t stopped Richmond’s attorney from using Jane Doe’s so-called “silence” against her: “The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that’s because there was consent,” Madison said.

There it is. Directly claiming the silence of an unconscious victim equals consent. And using that claim to shame her for not testifying up to that point.

“Honestly, I was praying that everything I heard wasn’t true,” she testified. She didn’t want to be the center of drama, especially in a small town, everybody-knows-everybody atmosphere. “I thought everybody would blame me.”

And she was right.

On Aug. 14, after taking the teen to a medical center in her hometown of Weirton, her parents decided to go to police. She testified that she sat in the car.

“You never wanted to go to court on charges did you,” asked Marianne Hemmeter, a special prosecutor with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

“No,” the girl said, who has the 28th witness to testify during the trial, which began Wednesday.

And while CNN and almost all the coverage focuses on the poor promising rapists:

In the most outwardly emotional moment of the testimony, Hemmeter showed the 16-year-old a photo of herself that she had not seen. In the photo, she is lying on the tan carpet of a basement floor, naked and on her stomach. Her arms are underneath her body.

The girl began to cry, as did some of her family members, many of whom were wearing teal ribbons and the color teal, which is identified with supporting survivors of sexual assault.

She also testified that she did not want to go to police. She said it was her parents’ idea. She sent a text to one defendant, 17, saying, “We know you didn’t rape me.”

Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter asked her that when she sent the text, did she know that digital penetration was also rape. The girl said she didn’t know that. She also said she didn’t know she had been digitally penetrated.

Like most victims, like most people, she didn’t know what counted as rape. But she did know coming forward would make her a target, and would make her friends turn on her; because they already had, that very night.

Hemmeter read from three of the texts: “Reno (football coach Reno Saccoccia) just called my house and said I raped you,” one said.

Another said, “You know what happened, there’s no video, so nothing happened.”

The third said, “This is the most pointless thing I’m going to get in trouble for. I should be thanked for taking care of you.”

The girl testified that she was interested in him and left a party with him because she trusted him.

She trusted him, and he said “there’s no video, so nothing happened.” She trusted him, and her friends (now former friends) yelled at her and blamed her the next morning, before she even knew what had been done to her and before she even knew the word “rape” applied to it. Though judging by the video, her attackers knew perfectly well that’s what it was.

And that’s the story, her story, and basically all of our stories in one form or another, that’s being erased when all the sympathy’s given to her rapists. That’s rape culture in action.

One of the comments in the compendium of assholery to which PZ linked was, “… her vag would have been fine.” The same comment mentioned how “ruined” the lives of the boys were.

So, there you have it. Rape didn’t damage the young girl much, but misapplied justice ruined the lives of the young men. [gag]

jenny6833a is a bit more polite about this, since she merely equates the three young people’s circumstances. But the principle behind both the “vag” comment and jenny’s comments is the same: Not much harm was done by these thoughtless young men.

Getting drunk at a party may not be ideal, but it is not the equivalent of raping a drunk girl. And I don’t care how “fine” or “not fine” the girl’s “vag” may be, rape causes damage on all levels. The refusal to acknowledge this damage is just sickening.

Let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that jenny sees little or no damage and therefore we can assume there was no damage to speak of. Having sex with someone who is passed out is a criminal act. Are we civilized or not? I note that one of the lawyers mentioned how hard it was going to be for the girl to go back to school. For one thing, some of the students and teachers will blame her for hurting the sports team.

jenny would have been sadder if all three had driven into a bridge abutment. I really don’t see why we have to compare driving into a bridge abutment to rape in order to downgrade the seriousness of rape. WTF? Both are bad — and, more importantly, they are different. Please do not not continue with the facile, overly-simplified equivalencies.

“The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that’s because there was consent,” Madison said.

I braced myself. Holy shit. That attorney needs to be disbarred or censored. Silence is consent? Somehow I can’t see that being accepted in a trial regarding breach of contract, or a murder, or a robbery. But because it is rape, and it is always the victims fault, it is fine? Fuck that shit.

I never said no, does that mean I wasn’t raped? I never said anything for 35 years (and still haven’t other than here, pseudonymously), does that mean I wasn’t raped? Do these fuckers even listen to what they say?

No wonder she is being blamed by the community. No wonder the rapists are considered the victims. Those privileged assholes raped a young woman and now they, and the town, and the country, want them to be the victims. Unbefuckinglievable.

Matt: the comments at Feministe go into that a bit (*warning*, the discussion’s disturbing though mostly civil). Basically as I understand the discussion, affirmative consent with the default being ‘no’ is not yet codified into law. The burden’s on the prosecution to prove consent was NOT given, even when that means proving the victim was unconscious enough, comatose enough, or drunk enough to be unable to give consent. Even though the law in Ohio includes a provision such as this:

There is 2907.2.c: “The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition […]”

There it is. Directly claiming the silence of an unconscious victim equals consent

What’s next? Claiming that a gunshot victim wanted to get shot because he was standing right where the gun was aimed? This is exactly the kind of thing that gets my nasty, vindictive side up in high gear.
I’m going to go for a walk and cool off.

Here in the UK, the rape (and sexual assault) laws are such that the onus is on the accused to show there are reasonable grounds for them believing consent was given.

With all due respect, that’s good to have, but in a culture that claims certain clothing or just being in a bar or at a party or out after dark/unchaperoned can constitute consent, that doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

Here in the UK, the rape (and sexual assault) laws are such that the onus is on the accused to show there are reasonable grounds for them believing consent was given.

That’s nice in theory, it’s a shame it doesn’t work in practice. Thanks to rape culture, judges and juries will accept almost anything as implicit consent: “look how she was dressed!” “she was drinking!” “she made out with me!” “she invited me over!”, and so on.

I just posted this in the other thread, but this quote’s relevant here too.

—

*warning for description of sexual assault* (bolds mine)

—

At one point of the night of the incident, Westlake, who was sober, determined that his friend Mark Cole was too drunk to make a 10-minute drive home. At first, Cole refused to turn over his keys, claiming he could operate his Volkswagen Jetta just fine. Westlake was undeterred, though, eventually “tricking” Cole by waiting for him to relax and then forcibly seizing the keys.

Yet maybe a half-hour later, Westlake walked in on the girl, sprawled out naked in the middle of a basement floor. To her side was Mays, exposed and slapping his penis on the girl’s hip. Behind her was Richmond, who, Westlake said, was violating her with two fingers.

Westlake said goodbye to the guys and kept walking. A good friend with his eye on the safety of others just minutes before was suddenly unaware or unsure of what to do – or simply uncaring enough to do anything at all.

“Something has gotten in there that said, ‘OK, we need to prevent drinking and driving,’ ” Hanna said. “We need to take it to that level with preventing sexual assault.”

Hanna is Katie Hanna, quoted earlier in the piece:

“The entitlement we heard during testimony, it didn’t seem like any empathy or support for the victim,” said Katie Hanna, statewide director of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence. “To see these things happen and to say, ‘I don’t recall; I didn’t think it was a bad thing; I just thought this was OK.’ It suggests that this was commonplace behavior.”

That’s nice in theory, it’s a shame it doesn’t work in practice. Thanks to rape culture, judges and juries will accept almost anything as implicit consent: “look how she was dressed!” “she was drinking!” “she made out with me!” “she invited me over!”, and so on.

It is beginning to work. A footballer was convicted last year of rape, and the issue of consent was key. The prosecution alleged that the victim was too drunk to give proper consent, and the jury accepted that argument. He is now in prison.

Alcohol is a game-changer when it comes to rape. If a woman was drinking when she was raped, she will be doubted and told it was her fault. Like Hester Prynne, she’ll be shamed and blamed. Society will force her to wear the Scarlet Letter A, for alcohol.

Friends, family, and if she goes to court, lawyers and judges, will scrutinize her behavior. She will be bombarded with questions. How much did you drink? Were you drunk? Were you binge drinking? Why were you drunk and alone with him? These questions are asked to establish that the woman set herself up to be raped because she consumed alcohol. And you can never trust an intoxicated woman because she really doesn’t remember what happened. It is classic blame-the-victim.

It’s not damned useful to have to argue that the victim’s drunk ENOUGH for assumed consent to no longer apply. If a woman’s even in the same room with alcohol, people will assume that means she’s consenting to any form of sex with anyone. There’s research to back that up.

“Something has gotten in there that said, ‘OK, we need to prevent drinking and driving,’ ” Hanna said. “We need to take it to that level with preventing sexual assault.”

THIS!

I remember, back in the late 70s and early 80s, when the anti-drunk-driving campaigns really began to heat up. Even without the internet, there was a vocal group who, quite loudly and frequently, kept telling everyone that it is part of growing up, part of human nature, part of who we are, that it would require people (and, oddly, it was mostly men making this argument) to change their behaviour, and we will never be able to change it. Of course, graphic adverts on the tele about the effects of drunk driving are a little easier to get past the religious right than adverts telling people (men in most cases) that consent, enthusiastic consent, unimpaired consent, and uncoerced consent, is essential in all sexual situations.

It’s not damned useful to have to argue that the victim’s drunk ENOUGH for assumed consent to no longer apply. If a woman’s even in the same room with alcohol, people will assume that means she’s consenting to any form of sex with anyone. There’s research to back that up.

Consent is NOT effectively primary in the law if the victim has to be proven unconscious, comatose, or impaired before she can be trusted. Why don’t you read the article I gave you? Or even my initial response to you where I said that’s a good START but not sufficient?

Alcohol is the new “short skirt.” A poll done in 2005 by Amnesty International/ICM found that 30% of respondents believed that the victim was “partially” or “totally” responsible if she was drunk.

Society puts the onus on women to keep themselves safe and avoid dangerous situations. So if a woman is drunk, she isn’t taking her personal security seriously and is responsible for what happens to her. The hypervigilance and suspicion that is expected of women who drink in the company of men is not only ludicrous but is impossible. The majority of sexual assaults are planned, and the perpetrator takes advantage of women who have been drinking because they are more vulnerable. Let that sink in: sexual assaults are planned. Plus, the majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim: friends, family members, boyfriends, husbands, classmates, fellow soldiers and supervisors. Putting the burden on women to prevent rape won’t stop rape. The responsibility to stop rape should be placed entirely on men because they are the ones who do it. And drinking isn’t a crime, rape is.

Me too what ? Wanting to see rapists convicted, yeap. You comment suggests there are some situations when you don’t. You seem to think that where the issue of consent is key, as it was in the Evans case, then the inability to give consent because of intoxication does not matter. Which would have meant Evans could not have been convicted.

Matt, I think that Pteryxx was pointing out that, in the past, the shortness of a woman’s skirt made a huge difference in the likelihood of conviction in a rape case and that now alcohol has become the magic let-the-rapist-go-free bullet in the defense attorney’s arsenal. At least, that is the way I read it.

That’s not what Pteryxx said or was getting at. Yes, it’s good one rapist was convicted. However, he was convicted due to the particular amount of alcohol the victim consumed. This is *not* a good thing. That is still part of rape culture. A woman who had one drink less may have resulted in an acquittal. Do you see? Whether or not a person who was raped had been drinking should not enter the equation at all. It should not matter. It should not matter, just like how a victim was dressed should not matter. It’s still placing the blame on the victim, even in cases where there’s a conviction.

Matt, I think that Pteryxx was pointing out that, in the past, the shortness of a woman’s skirt made a huge difference in the likelihood of conviction in a rape case and that now alcohol has become the magic let-the-rapist-go-free bullet in the defense attorney’s arsenal. At least, that is the way I read it.

I would have read it that way, except for the fact the case I mentioned was about how the defense of claiming the victim was too drunk has been removed from courts in the UK. Chad Evans was convicted because there was evidence the victim was too intoxicated to have given consent. It is unlikely he would have been convicted had the onus not been on him to prove consent had been given.

That’s not what Pteryxx said or was getting at. Yes, it’s good one rapist was convicted. However, he was convicted due to the particular amount of alcohol the victim consumed. This is *not* a good thing. That is still part of rape culture. A woman who had one drink less may have resulted in an acquittal. Do you see? Whether or not a person who was raped had been drinking should not enter the equation at all. It should not matter. It should not matter, just like how a victim was dressed should not matter. It’s still placing the blame on the victim, even in cases where there’s a conviction.

It is not about drinking, it is about consent. Clearly you think being intoxicated to the extent consent cannot be given should be a factor in a rape case. Which is odd, given what I know of you.

Matt, there seems to be some serious miscommunications going on here. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the US system is superior or that Evans shouldn’t have been convicted, only that even the UK system doesn’t go far enough.

Clearly you think being intoxicated to the extent consent cannot be given should be a factor in a rape case. Which is odd, given what I know of you.

I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. I think the matter of drinking can be a positive in rape prevention, as in the Don’t Be That Guy campaign in Canada. That’s been highly successful. Unfortunately, as Pteryxx pointed out, a majority of rapes are now planned out, with alcohol being used as a tool to rape. This not only leads to less reporting, it’s a terrible thing to introduce in the courtroom, because the degree of alcohol can determine the difference between an acquittal or conviction.

Intoxication should equal lack of consent, however, that is not how it works in a courtroom. The degree of alcohol consumed makes a huge difference, and it still shores up the drunken slut of rape culture. As I said, *one* drink, either way, can result in different outcomes in a court of law.

Here in the UK, the rape (and sexual assault) laws are such that the onus is on the accused to show there are reasonable grounds for them believing consent was given.

So the onus is on Evan to demonstrate that he had reason to believe that his victim consented to what he did.

But this:

A footballer was convicted last year of rape, and the issue of consent was key. The prosecution alleged that the victim was too drunk to give proper consent, and the jury accepted that argument. He is now in prison.

Is the prosecution demonstrating the victim’s inability to give consent.

So if the victim had consumed less alcohol, to the point of being capable of giving consent, is it your contention that Evan would have successfully demonstrated that consent had in fact been obtained?

Either Evan had to submit a defense that involved reasonable belief of consent, OR the prosecution had to demonstrate the inability of the victim to consent. Which is it? Because that doesn’t sound much different from what we have here in the U.S.

Matt, there seems to be some serious miscommunications going on here. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the US system is superior or that Evans shouldn’t have been convicted, only that even the UK system doesn’t go far enough.

I will briefly describe the Evans case.

Evans, and a co-accused who was to be aquitted, were accused of raping a 19 year old women in a hotel room in North Wales. They had met the women at a club, and had spent sometime drinking with her. Evans and other man left with the women and went back to Evan’s hotel room where Evans has sex with her. He claimed that the women has consented to sex, the women could not recall. CCTV evidence showed that when the left the club and arrived at the hotel the women was extremely drunk, having to be support by the two men.

The prosecution case was that the women not in a position to give consent, and that the men should have realised that at the time. Without the CCTV evidence there is unlikely to have been a prosecution, since it would have become a he said/she said case with regards consent. However the jury accepted that the women was in a position to give consent, and Evans was convicted. The other man was acquitted since there was doubt if he was in the hotel room at the time.

I think it is a good thing that Evans was convicted on the evidence. Pteryxx and Caine have said that her intoxication should not have been used as evidence. Hence they would have wanted Evans acquitted, since the evidence the victim was intoxicated was the only evidence there was. Get rid of that, there was no case.

OK, I am seriously pissed off with Caine and Pteryxx. I don’t want to fall out with either, but I am not happy about their lack of honesty. They did imply they would have wanted Evans to go free, and although they might not actually have meant that, it is incumbent of them to take care over what they say and apologise when they get things wrong. Since they are not willing to do that, I think it better I drop the subject.

It is a pity, both are normally decent people. It seems though that they both have a blind spot.

It’s still placing the blame on the victim, even in cases where there’s a conviction.

The old “You were drinking so it’s your fault” thing certainly does, but the case Matt talks about is a reversal of that. Rather than “She was drunk so it’s OK” that case backed up the message that she was drunk so it was definitely not OK. It’s a reversal, and one for the better. It’s putting the blame on the rapist for taking advantage of a drunk woman’s vulnerable state rather than putting the blame on the woman for “making herself vulnerable”. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

I think I see what Pteryxx is saying; the issue is not how drunk she was but whether or not she gave consent, but I think that is the issue they used. As Matt said:

… the issue of consent was key. The prosecution alleged that the victim was too drunk to give proper consent, and the jury accepted that argument.

They proved she was drunk in order to prove she could not have given informed consent. That means the focus is on consent, does it not? It seems to mark a reversal of the attitudes Pteryxx cites, or at least the judiciary disagreeing with those attitudes. That’s how I interpret it, at any rate. The cultural attitudes still coincide with those cited by Pteryxx, but at least the law is changing so as not to reflect those attitudes. This is a good thing, right?

I think it is seriously short-sighted of you – dishonest, even – to claim that Caine and Pteryxx implied they wanted a rapist to go free. Your pedantry in this case is misapplied, and your accusation of their dishonesty in bad taste at best.

It is a pity, both are normally decent people. It seems though that they both have a blind spot.

Either Evan had to submit a defense that involved reasonable belief of consent, OR the prosecution had to demonstrate the inability of the victim to consent. Which is it? Because that doesn’t sound much different from what we have here in the U.S

Evans claimed consent had been given, but the prosecution case was that the women was not in a position to give consent. There was video evidenced of her state of intoxication, and that was key to securing a conviction. The jury accepted the prosecution case she could not consent, so the defence case automatically failed.

The old “You were drinking so it’s your fault” thing certainly does, but the case Matt talks about is a reversal of that. Rather than “She was drunk so it’s OK” that case backed up the message that she was drunk so it was definitely not OK. It’s a reversal, and one for the better. It’s putting the blame on the rapist for taking advantage of a drunk woman’s vulnerable state rather than putting the blame on the woman for “making herself vulnerable”. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?

I think it is a good thing that Evans was convicted on the evidence. Pteryxx and Caine have said that her intoxication should not have been used as evidence. Hence they would have wanted Evans acquitted, since the evidence the victim was intoxicated was the only evidence there was. Get rid of that, there was no case.

That’s not how I read it at all. It seems to me that they are saying evidence that she was drinking in the club should have been enough, not that they are to prove just how drunk she was. After all, if she was drinking but able to walk on her own, it’s reasonable to assume they wouldn’t have convicted him – because the only evidence them having to drag her back to the hotel room.

It shouldn’t matter if the woman had 5 drinks, or just one. That’s an vague line that varies from person to person anyways. One woman can have 6 and still be fine, others will just one will be in the same state as Evan’s victim. That’s why just drinking in itself should be enough to err on the side of caution and not fuck over the victims that were drugged or “can’t handle their booze”.

It’s good having that law that got Evans convicted, but it no where near what we actually want in place. It doesn’t go far enough.

“I think maybe this actually works the opposite way at times: Rape is such a horrible crime that anyone who does it must be a horrible person. Joe isn’t a horrible person, ergo he can’t be a rapist and any woman who accuses him of rape must be lying.”

That seems plausible. Would you consider the solution to be to acknowledge that most people are in fact horrible people of one stripe or another, even the ones that speak softly and smile a lot? That is my own default assumption, but people tend to accuse me of being a misanthrope when I admit to it.

“The person harmed by a rape is not the woman, but whomever the woman belongs to and perhaps the large community she’s part of. ”

Hmm. That is an odd notion, to me. It is very much not what I was brought up to believe. However, I can imagine that attitude existing in other parts of the world, possibly including the US.

Maureen Brian @ 61:

Hmm. Possible. Certainly a lot of people seem to be oddly rigid in their definition of rape.

However, it seems that in order for so many people to have a vested interest in it for that reason, there would need to be a sizable chunk of the population who are either prone to being rapists as per the more liberal definition, or believe that someone they care about might be. Am I in fact to understand that sex with unconscious people, or at least the hope of the same, is part of a great many people’s lifestyle?

I would not find it hard to believe, of course. But then, as I said above, my regard for human nature is extremely low.

That’s not how I read it at all. It seems to me that they are saying evidence that she was drinking in the club should have been enough, not that they are to prove just how drunk she was. After all, if she was drinking but able to walk on her own, it’s reasonable to assume they wouldn’t have convicted him – because the only evidence them having to drag her back to the hotel room.

Well then you have a problem, because it becomes much harder to secure a conviction. It seems some people want to prevent the prosecution making best use of the evidence to secure a conviction, which would mean their claims they did not want Evans to go free are false.

I know I said I would drop it, but I am furious with Caine, and her lies. She needs to fucking apologise, and quickly.

She wasn’t lying. You are both misunderstanding each other and you, Matt, are so caught up in being upset that you are not seeing what is apparent to most of the rest of us in this thread. Step back, take a deep breath for a few hours, and re-read without the passion.

It’s good he got convicted. No one wanted him to go free. But we can see how easy it would have been FOR him to go free, if she’d had just a little bit less to drink.

Matt, please point at the quotes where Caine and Pteryxx are even implying that they want a rapist to walk away free?

You could always try reading what they wrote, but here you go.

Caine first:

“However, he was convicted due to the particular amount of alcohol the victim consumed. This is *not* a good thing. ”

That is saying that being unable to consent due to intoxication should be not evidence used by the prosecution. Since without that evidence there would have been no conviction, it is saying it would be better for Evans to either have been acquitted or never prosecuted.

She said, and now she is lying about having said it.

And now Pteryx:

“It’s not damned useful to have to argue that the victim’s drunk ENOUGH for assumed consent to no longer apply. If a woman’s even in the same room with alcohol, people will assume that means she’s consenting to any form of sex with anyone. There’s research to back that up.”

Also saying that the prosecution should not have used the evidence the victim was unable to consent, and thus also saying Evans should not have been convicted.

It’s good he got convicted. No one wanted him to go free. But we can see how easy it would have been FOR him to go free, if she’d had just a little bit less to drink.

Which is what I have been saying, but is not what some others have been saying.

It is NOT what Caine said, and it is NOT what Pteryx said.

They both clearly suggested the prosecution should not have used the evidence it did to secure a conviction. One of them is lying about that. Now it possible Caine simply misunderstood, but were that the case she would have offered a correction., She has not. She is normally betrer than this, but my opinion of her has changed for the worse.

Matt, the way I see it is that you’re saying “a win is a win is a win” and what other people are saying that “a win that relies on creating a potentially dangerous legal precedent could be a major loss for other victims in the long term.” I’ve seen that issue come up a lot in the fight for marriage equality in the U.S. where activists have expressed concern about what arguments are used to fight certain cases because enshrining those arguments into law could allow one state to have marriage equality and allow other states to prevent it for many more decades.

Let’s say Evans left the club with the women, and they went back to his hotel room. The evidence of the staff at the club, and the video evidence, suggests the woman left with Evans willingly, and before they left they had been getting on very well. Back in the hotel room Evans has sex with the woman. Later she goes to the police saying he raped her. He is arrested, and admits to having sex with her, but claims she was a willing partner.

How do you secure a conviction ? You have no meaningful forensic evidence, and essentially the case comes down to his word against hers. If you are the prosecution, what evidence can you offer the jury ?

Matt, the way I see it is that you’re saying “a win is a win is a win” and what other people are saying that “a win that relies on creating a potentially dangerous legal precedent could be a major loss for other victims in the long term.” I’ve seen that issue come up a lot in the fight for marriage equality in the U.S. where activists have expressed concern about what arguments are used to fight certain cases because enshrining those arguments into law could allow one state to have marriage equality and allow other states to prevent it for many more decades.

What I see others as saying is that they would rather let rapists go free than use good evidence to convict them.

Calling people liars isn’t remotely helping either.

It helps when to point out they are lying.

You cannot have it both ways. If your reading is correct then Pteryx and Caine would want Evans to have gone free, which is what I said they wanted. They both denied that, meaning that according your position they lied.

I disagree. I think both Pteryxx and Caine were speaking to the idea that the amount of alcohol can be used to determine if she had too much to drink to be able to consent or not, while very useful in this case, could be (and I stress the word could) used against a victim. How many times, in discussions of consent, have people come in and started asking about how many drinks can a woman have before it becomes rape as if there is some arbitrary limit to what makes any woman drunk? I think (and I think that Caine and Pteryxx would also think this) that this case was a good thing. It hung, not on whether she consented, but on whether she could give consent given her incapacitation. And while it is a good thing, it could be (and, again, I stress the word could) be a double-edged sword.

Right now in many parts of the US (if not all), if a woman is at a party and there are drinks served and she is raped, much of the investigation and, if it comes, trial, will be spent determining if she is a drunken slut who got what she deserved even if she drank nothing! The mere fact that she was in the presence of alcohol means, to many men, cops, DAs, juries and judges, that she could not have been raped.

Pteryxx and Caine pointed out the possibility that this may be a double-edged sword. This does not mean that either one of them wanted a rapist to go free.

Having read the links in the OP, I find myself despising our species a bit more than usual today. The fact that the spectacularly disgusting rape apologist Michael Crook is a fellow human being in particular contributes to my current bout of misanthropy.

There are days when I fear that humanity is not only past saving, but wouldn’t be worth the bother in any case…

Fortunately, such episodes of despair about humanity are temporary. I know there are plenty of decent people out there, and putting up withn the Michael Crooks of the world is a price worth paying. Any idle fantasies of going all Dexter on him are just that – idle fancies.

I think what Caine and Pteryxx are getting at is that alcohol should not be the only indication of consent, as if the woman was less drunk (i.e. walked up to the hotel room under her own steam) it would have been assumed that consent was given. It obviously doesn’t mean it was, as I’m sure you’d agree; even if she had gone to the hotel room completely of her own free will would not mean she had consented to sex, but in our current culture it would be taken to mean exactly that.

However the issue with that is, as you said, it devolves into he said/she said, and under those circumstances it’s impossible to prove anything either way. I think Pteryxx and Caine are wishing for a better way to prove his guilt, and see this method as merely a continuation of the focus being on “How many drinks had she had?” rather than on consent; but under an Innocent Until Proven Guilty legal system, I don’t see what other method could be used in a case such as this.

That is saying that being unable to consent due to intoxication should be not evidence used by the prosecution. Since without that evidence there would have been no conviction, it is saying it would be better for Evans to either have been acquitted or never prosecuted.

Wrong. That the rape itself should be the evidence, not the intoxication.

Also saying that the prosecution should not have used the evidence the victim was unable to consent, and thus also saying Evans should not have been convicted.

Wrong again.

And I am just a bit angry at you for claiming that Caine and Pteryxx are lying and that they would rather that a rapist be set free.

I disagree. I think both Pteryxx and Caine were speaking to the idea that the amount of alcohol can be used to determine if she had too much to drink to be able to consent or not, while very useful in this case, could be (and I stress the word could) used against a victim. How many times, in discussions of consent, have people come in and started asking about how many drinks can a woman have before it becomes rape as if there is some arbitrary limit to what makes any woman drunk? I think (and I think that Caine and Pteryxx would also think this) that this case was a good thing. It hung, not on whether she consented, but on whether she could give consent given her incapacitation. And while it is a good thing, it could be (and, again, I stress the word could) be a double-edged sword.

The new rules under which Evan’s trial took place do not allow the defence to use the amount a victim had to drink as part of the defence, The prosecution may use it if they intend to show that the victim was so intoxicated that they could not consent.

Matt, maybe your position that there are rape survivors here who want rapists to get away with it is COMPLETE FUCKING BULLSHIT and now would be a good time to stop being a malicious fucking asshole? Maybe, I don’t know… it is also possible that you just really really REALLY want everyone to know that you’ve decided that being a shitty human being is something that you’re going to aim for from now on.

At the least, you seem to be so fucking desperate to be seen as “right” that you don’t care how wrong you have to be to defend your position. And that’s a pretty damned shitty way to treat other people.

There are some respected voices around here saying that this is a misunderstanding. When many people that I respect are telling me that I have misunderstood, it is generally a good time for me to step back, remove myself from the situation for a time, and come back later.

Here in the UK, the rape (and sexual assault) laws are such that the onus is on the accused to show there are reasonable grounds for them believing consent was given.

This is the first comment from you on this current subject. It’s good that positive effects coming from this change of laws, but the “reasonable grounds for consent” is open for abuse. Like all the cases of rapists going free to short skirts, skinny jeans, “she had a drink but wasn’t too drunk to fuck” and such. Pointing out a possible loop hole in the system doesn’t mean we want the rapists to go free, but that we want to change rape culture and the laws so they can’t use such bullshit excuses.

#124 Matt,

The new rules under which Evan’s trial took place do not allow the defence to use the amount a victim had to drink as part of the defence,

That’s good.

The prosecution may use it if they intend to show that the victim was so intoxicated that they could not consent.

(emphasis mine)

That’s what I have a problem with – the so. Who gets to decide how intoxicated they have to be to not give consent? Shouldn’t it be any alcohol and/or drugs at all? That’s what I think anyways, since the vagueness of “she had 2 drinks so she wasn’t raped but if she had 3 then she was” is highly problematic to me.

Matt, based on your description of the case, if the CCTV cameras had shown the victim walking unaided, Evans wouldn’t have been convicted, because the victim wouldn’t have been perceived as being too drunk to consent.

THAT is the issue that Caine and Pteryxx keep bringing up: this case merely shows how the distinction between ‘rape’ and ‘not-rape’ lies in circumstantial factors rather than whether or not the victim gave consent. It’s the same logic that underlies every other excuse rapists use: it’s only rape if X number of circumstances are met.

Also, your equating of very valid concerns over the logic of the case to wishing a rapist had gotten away is as bad as people who claim that people critiquing prominent atheists are secretly religious.

Do you see how this could be used to excuse a rapist as well as to convict a rapist?

Given the new rules prevent that, no. How fucking hard is it to understand ? The new rules in the UK prevent the defence using how much a victim had to drink as part of their case. It is possible that in a badly handled trial it could happen, but the judge in such a trial would have some explaining to do to their bosses.

Bloody hell. Matt, for what it’s worth, I think that Caine and Pteryxx could have been clearer (I had trouble understanding their point too) but I think you have misinterpreted them and are unnecessarily angry. I think the advice offered by Ogvorbis at #130 may be worth looking at. Just my two pence.

I’m going home now, but I will say that this thread really was getting interesting and I’d quite like to continue it tomorrow, so may I be obnoxious enough to suggest that the “He said/ She said” argument be continued in the Thunderdome?

Consider what you are saying here – how likely is it that rape survivors are somehow secretly hoping that rapists get away with rape, make statements to that edffect, and then lie to cover the fact up?

Really – does that sound like a plausible scenario to you? Especially given Caine’s personal history?

I really think that you should be giving serious consideration to the first rule of holes about now.

Given the new rules prevent that, no. How fucking hard is it to understand ? The new rules in the UK prevent the defence using how much a victim had to drink as part of their case. It is possible that in a badly handled trial it could happen, but the judge in such a trial would have some explaining to do to their bosses.

If the CCTV footage had shown her walking, unaided, with no balance problems, would that be considered evidence for the prosecution or the defense? It wouldn’t even need to be a badly handled trial. If her physical condition is considered evidence as to whether or not she was too drunk to consent, it can go both ways.

Matt, based on your description of the case, if the CCTV cameras had shown the victim walking unaided, Evans wouldn’t have been convicted, because the victim wouldn’t have been perceived as being too drunk to consent.

Exactly. The new rules enabled a conviction. To argue against the use of the video evidence to establish inability to consent is to argue Evans should not have been convicted. Which is what I am saying some here have said but others tell me they have not.

It is this simple, If you think Evans should not have been convicted on basis of the video evidence showing inability to consent then you think he should have walked free. There was no other option available. The CPS were clear that without using that evidence there would have been no case.

You are agreeing with me that Caine and Pteryx wanted Evans to go free.

If the CCTV footage had shown her walking, unaided, with no balance problems, would that be considered evidence for the prosecution or the defense? It wouldn’t even need to be a badly handled trial. If her physical condition is considered evidence as to whether or not she was too drunk to consent, it can go both ways.

It would not have been evidence either way. No one was denying Evans took the victim back to his room and had sex with her. The prosecution would have needed different evidence, which does not seem to have existed.

The video footage showed that she was too drunk to consent. Had she consumed the same amount of alcohol, been just as drunk, but had better bodily control, the evidence could have gotten the rapist off the hook.

And no, I am not agreeing with you. I am agreeing with Caine and Pteryxx that, as good as this conviction was, similar footage could, depending on the victims perceived ability to walk, be used to find the rapist innocent.

The new rules in the UK prevent the defense using how much a victim had to drink as part of their case.

Does it prevent them from using how the victim was dressed as an excuse? Does it prevent them from using the victim having had sex with the rapist consensually before? Does it prevent them from dragging up the victim’s entire sexual history to slut shame them?

Those are all things that have been used previously as “there are reasonable grounds for them believing consent was given”. That giant fucking hole for rape culture to abuse is a problem. Is there any wonder we’re skittish to praise a law that might cause more harm than good all things considered?

The focus shouldn’t be examining the victim for any flaw, which has been done and will done continue to be done because hey, the slutty slut deserved it.

Consider what you are saying here – how likely is it that rape survivors are somehow secretly hoping that rapists get away with rape, make statements to that edffect, and then lie to cover the fact up?

Really – does that sound like a plausible scenario to you? Especially given Caine’s personal history?

I really think that you should be giving serious consideration to the first rule of holes about now.

I think your question would be better directed to Caine. I cannot answer for what she was thinking about at the time.

Does it prevent them from using how the victim was dressed as an excuse? Does it prevent them from using the victim having had sex with the rapist consensually before? Does it prevent them from dragging up the victim’s entire sexual history to slut shame them?

Dress – yes it does prevent that.
Prior sexual history with the accused – Depends on context – Defence has to get approval from judge.
Other sexual history – prevents that.

Given that the prosecution had to demonstrate that the victim was too drunk to be able to give consent, and that you think that without that demonstration Evan would not have been convicted, then what the fuck is so much better about putting the onus on the accused to demonstrate reasonable belief of consent when the victim will never be believed?

The U.K. has something that is potentially marginally better than what is currently in place in the U.S. But when people started pointing out the weakness of it, you got defensive and started accusing them of not wanting rapists to be convicted.

If the CCTV footage had shown her walking, unaided, with no balance problems, would that be considered evidence for the prosecution or the defense? It wouldn’t even need to be a badly handled trial. If her physical condition is considered evidence as to whether or not she was too drunk to consent, it can go both ways.

It would not have been evidence either way. No one was denying Evans took the victim back to his room and had sex with her. The prosecution would have needed different evidence, which does not seem to have existed.

Do you mean that this evidence could only be used and interpreted by the prosecution? Seriously. As you say, no one denies he took her to his room and had sex with her. The only reason there was a conviction was because the video evidence showed, by her physical actions, to have been too drunk to consent. If she had been just as drunk but could walk unaided, would the conviction still have happened? No. See what I mean about a double-edged sword?

Had the prosecution not used the video evidence, Evans would not have been convicted as there was not sufficient evidence to convict him otherwise. Thus arguing that the evidence should not have been used is to argue Evans should not have been convicted.

Some of you seem to have problems understanding that. If so, get help with remedial English.

Ugh. Can anyone really deny the existence of rape culture at this point without a shit-ton of mental gymnastics, and a few outright self deceptions for good measure?

Meanwhile, Matt I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re hung up on semantics trying to make Caine and Pteryxx admit to poor clarity of writing and backpedal off their CHOICE OF WORDS, which while petty is, at least somewhat understandable. If so, take a breather and climb out of the hole. If not… WTF dude? Are you looking for Redstone?

Do you mean that this evidence could only be used and interpreted by the prosecution? Seriously. As you say, no one denies he took her to his room and had sex with her. The only reason there was a conviction was because the video evidence showed, by her physical actions, to have been too drunk to consent. If she had been just as drunk but could walk unaided, would the conviction still have happened? No. See what I mean about a double-edged sword?

You seem to think that there was a whole plethora evidence the prosecution could have used. There wasn’t. It was the video evidence alone. If they did not have that they would have not have had a case.

And yes, the evidence would have been of no use to the defence. Their defence was she consented. The video would have not shown her consenting.

Meanwhile, Matt I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re hung up on semantics trying to make Caine and Pteryxx admit to poor clarity of writing and backpedal off their CHOICE OF WORDS, which while petty is, at least somewhat understandable. If so, take a breather and climb out of the hole. If not… WTF dude? Are you looking for Redstone?

Well they have not admitted to a poor choice of words, and some others here agree with me that they were saying in the absence of the video evidence Evans should not have been convicted.

If you think the evidence used to convict Evans should not have been used you also think he should have gone free. It is that simple.

And yes, the evidence would have been of no use to the defence. Their defence was she consented. The video would have not shown her consenting.

IF SHE HADN’T BEEN FALL DOWN DRUNK, if she had been one drink away from fall down drunk, still able to walk by herself and all that, do you not think that the defense would have used this tape to prove she was sober enough to consent and the rapist would have likely been acquited?

And what about those cases where there ARE no such video (which is, like, the VAST majority of cases, including mine)?

Look Matt, it’s pretty clear that all that Caine and Pteryxx were doing was pointing out that there’s an exploitable loophole for rapists in the scenario you’re describing, which is that not being TOTALLY incapacitated means that maybe you did give consent… regardless of whether you claim otherwise. IOW, the testimony of the victim is still apparently being treated as suspect here, and that’s not good.

Well they have not admitted to a poor choice of words, and some others here agree with me that they were saying in the absence of the video evidence Evans should not have been convicted.

If you think the evidence used to convict Evans should not have been used you also think he should have gone free. It is that simple.

It’s not that simple, no matter how often or how authoritatively you try to state its simplicity. There was an objection to what was perceived to be the glorification of a dangerous argument (‘sure, if she’s drunk enough she clearly didn’t consent’, the judges say, but WHO the FUCK gets to decide what’s drunk enough to consent/not consent in a rape trail, especially with no video or less clear-cut video? Do you not see the problem with this?) not against the conviction of a rapist.

Well they have not admitted to a poor choice of words, and some others here agree with me that they were saying in the absence of the video evidence Evans should not have been convicted.

I didn’t say they HAD admitted to it, I said if that’s YOUR motive it’s understandable that you got on this tangent and there’s still time to save face by recognizing you’ve gone too far, and climb out of the hole. Otherwise you’re going to find bedrock soon and dig into the void.

IF SHE HADN’T BEEN FALL DOWN DRUNK, if she had been one drink away from fall down drunk, still able to walk by herself and all that, do you not think that the defense would have used this tape to prove she was sober enough to consent and the rapist would have likely been acquited?

No one was arguing consent took place the a club, but rather in the hotel room, for which there was no video evidence.

And what about those cases where there ARE no such video (which is, like, the VAST majority of cases, including mine)?

Then different evidence is needed. In the case of Evans that would have meant insufficient evidence to
prosecute.

I must ask those who do not think the video evidence should have been used, what other evidence should have been used instead. And what should have been done if that evidence was not enough to prosecute, which in the UK means a greater than 50% chance of securing a conviction.

How, in the absence of the video evidence, would Evans have been convicted ?

Dress – yes it does prevent that.
Prior sexual history with the accused – Depends on context – Defence has to get approval from judge.
Other sexual history – prevents that.

Great, can you provide a reference? I’ve searched and only found new laws from 2010, none of which is saying what you’re saying.

Had the prosecution not used the video evidence, Evans would not have been convicted as there was not sufficient evidence to convict him otherwise. Thus arguing that the evidence should not have been used is to argue Evans should not have been convicted.

They could’ve just used tape from inside the bar or the bartender’s testimony that she had been drinking. Drinking. at.all. That’s it.

She shouldn’t have been required to be fall down drunk on video tape in order to get her rapist convicted when she was drinking in a club prior to leaving.

It’s good that the rapist was convicted. Yes, the law has it’s strong suits but seriously, it’s not enough. It could have easily been an acquittal, not by using the tape, but if she wasn’t SO visible incapable. Like Pterryxx said earlier, we shouldn’t have to prove that the victim was passed out or incapable of walking to prove rape, since sometimes all it takes is one drink. What about those victims? They still get screwed over by the system because “they weren’t drunk enough to not consent”, which is nonsensical and pointless.

Look Matt, it’s pretty clear that all that Caine and Pteryxx were doing was pointing out that there’s an exploitable loophole for rapists in the scenario you’re describing, which is that not being TOTALLY incapacitated means that maybe you did give consent… regardless of whether you claim otherwise. IOW, the testimony of the victim is still apparently being treated as suspect here, and that’s not good.

Actually in this case the victim remembered very little of the events, and nothing of the rape itself. She went to the police in the morning reporting she believed she has been raped.

And I do not understand the loophole argument. Yes, there is potentially a loophole, but the new rules did more than just allow the prosecution to use evidence about ability to consent. It also removed, or drastically curtailed, the ability of the defence to use issues such as dress, prior sexual history etc. Dress can only be used when it comes to the mechanics of the rape, and prior sexual history with the accused can only be used if the victim were to deny such a history, and only then with the prior approval of the judge.

The video evidence, if showed the woman leaving in control and willingly, would be of no use to the defence as it would show probable consent to her leaving with the accused. Which would not be evidence of consent to sex.

Matt, if you want to continue believing that because it worked out well in one high profile case this will mean that no rape victims (or even fuck it! be generous! how about just ‘few’) will ever be denied justice because of an abuse of the generalized rule (NOT the way it was used in the Evans case specifically, the general fucking rule of fucking LAW), then go ahead.

Even go ahead and call people who’ve been fighting the rape apologists on this site for literally YEARS liars and rape supporters who wanted some random dude who was a big deal in the UK to go free for some mysterious and nefarious reason (women, amirite?) instead facing the fact that there are actual objections against the general rule of the law, (not the law as used int eh Evans case specifically) that affects those of us who were actually raped. Hey, whatever, right?

IOW, this scenario convicted one rapist, but could easily let another go free so long as he targets a woman who is only slightly inebriated.

But if that was the case, it would always have been the case, and not because of the new rules. The new rules restrict the arguments the defense can use, but open then up for the prosecution. It does not make acquittals more likely, but does make convictions more likely.

They could’ve just used tape from inside the bar or the bartender’s testimony that she had been drinking. Drinking. at.all. That’s it.

And what use would the simple fact she had been drinking be ?

It would not be evidence usable by either side. The defence cannot use the fact the victim was drinking as a defence, and it does not aid the prosecution in anyway. No one was denying Evans was drinking with the woman.

It’s good that the rapist was convicted. Yes, the law has it’s strong suits but seriously, it’s not enough. It could have easily been an acquittal, not by using the tape, but if she wasn’t SO visible incapable. Like Pterryxx said earlier, we shouldn’t have to prove that the victim was passed out or incapable of walking to prove rape, since sometimes all it takes is one drink. What about those victims? They still get screwed over by the system because “they weren’t drunk enough to not consent”, which is nonsensical and pointless.

It is almost certain Evans would never have been prosecuted without the video evidence. That is not the result of the changes that allowed the video evidence to be used though. The rule of evidence makes it easier to get a conviction in some cases. It does not make it easier to get an acquittal in others. So why the hostility to the rule ?

In the past, before the rule change, even with the video evidence it would have been difficult to convict Evans. The argument it would have been difficult without is true, but not relevant.

The video evidence, if showed the woman leaving in control and willingly, would be of no use to the defence as it would show probable consent to her leaving with the accused. Which would not be evidence of consent to sex.

So you’re admitting that if the victim had not been incapacitated, then this video would have done precisely nothing for the prosecution. And since you’ve asserted that the prosecution’s entire case depended on the video, then Evans would have gone free without it.

Which is exactly why the new rules aren’t much better than what was in place before. Which is what people have been trying to tell you, after which you accuse them of lying and wanting rapists to go free.

Could the video, if it had shown the victim able to walk unaided, have been used by the defense?

No, it would not have aided their case.

The only situation it could have been useful is if there was more than one video, and the evidence from them showed a difference in the behaviour of the victim. For example, if a later video showed her able to walk unaided then it could be used to counter an earlier video from the prosecution.

But in the situation as described, it would not have been of use to either party.

Suppose exactly the same set of circumstances. Everything identical. Except that the existing video showed the victim able to walk unaided. Could the defense have used the video to show that she was not so drunk that she could not give consent?

You’re being a shithead; it’s both absurd and grossly offensive to accuse Caine and Pteryxx of lying. You could have continued to argue your point without going there at all.

In fact, the details of the case show that rape culture still allowed Evans’ co-defendant, Clayton McDonald, to get off. Although he also admitted having sex with the victim, before Evans apparently, the jury acquitted him, although she was falling-down drunk shortly before, as shown by the CCTV.

But I think Matt does have a valid point about the recent change in UK law: it does not say that if the complainant is only somewhat intoxicated, then that implies consent. The accused has to show that they had reasonable grounds to believe consent was given, and the law now says that there is a level of intoxication that whatever the other claimed evidence of consent, by itself makes it impossible to show this, and hence makes sex rape. If the jury had applied the law correctly, I can’t see how they could have acquitted McDonald.

This right here is the problem. People keep pointing out how, in reality, right now that video would have been used by the defence in that case, and it would have been construed as helping their case, and that is what’s wrong with the current legal/judicial/social climate. So how about acknowledging that you fucked up, apologizing, and not digging yourself deeper, hey?

Which is exactly why the new rules aren’t much better than what was in place before. Which is what people have been trying to tell you, after which you accuse them of lying and wanting rapists to go free.

The new rules enabled Evans to be convicted. They also restrict the options open to the defense, but those are going to take longer to see an effect since the evidenced for their effectiveness will be in increased conviction rates.

And no, that is not what people have been telling me. Pteryx and Caine were claiming that the new rules would make it harder to secure a conviction, since it would allow the defence to claim the victim was not so drunk they were incapable of consent. That argument is only open to the defence when the prosecution argue the victim was unable to consent. If the prosecution do not introduce that argument, the issue of intoxication is not admissible.

This right here is the problem. People keep pointing out how, in reality, right now that video would have been used by the defence in that case, and it would have been construed as helping their case, and that is what’s wrong with the current legal/judicial/social climate. So how about acknowledging that you fucked up, apologizing, and not digging yourself deeper, hey?

There are rules about what arguments the defence and prosecution can make in a trial. The new rules in respect of rape trials in the UK place severe restrictions on what evidence the defence can introduce. They are not allowed to introduce evidence as to how drunk the victim was, unless the prosecution does so first.

How could it help their case if the jury are not allowed to see it. You need to explain that.

Sure it would. If I understand you correctly, the defense wouldn’t be able to use it to argue that since she went with them voluntarily, consent could be assumed, but it would still have defeated any attempt to argue that she was too intoxicated to give consent.
Even if she was sufficiently intoxicated that she was in black-out territory, if she was able to walk unaided, the video clears the guy. If she can walk, she’s not so intoxicated that she can’t consent, which means he walks.

That argument is only open to the defence when the prosecution argue the victim was unable to consent. If the prosecution do not introduce that argument, the issue of intoxication is not admissible.

Thank you.

This is the reason I kept asking the same question. And I think this is what Pteryxx and Caine were alluding to. This is significant and makes it much less likely (not out of the realm of possibility) that defense would use the intoxication of the victim as an out.

This was a misunderstanding and what I just quoted is exactly what I did not understand. And I suspect that Caine and Pteryxx did not understand this either. They were not lying. I am not lying. There was a fucking misunderstanding and what you just wrote gives me exactly the missing piece.

Sure it would. If I understand you correctly, the defense wouldn’t be able to use it to argue that since she went with them voluntarily, consent could be assumed, but it would still have defeated any attempt to argue that she was too intoxicated to give consent.

Well of course it would, but the video was the evidence being used by the prosecution!

If the tape did not exist, then the prosecution could not have argued that she was unable to consent, so therefore the video is not useful to them.

Well of course it would, but the video was the evidence being used by the prosecution!

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this. The video in question, even if it had shown that the victim was capable of walking unaided, and thus capable of giving consent, could not have been introduced by the defense?

Well of course it would, but the video was the evidence being used by the prosecution!

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this. The video in question, even if it had shown that the victim was capable of walking unaided, and thus capable of giving consent, could not have been introduced by the defense?

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this. The video in question, even if it had shown that the victim was capable of walking unaided, and thus capable of giving consent, could not have been introduced by the defense?

Even if she was sufficiently intoxicated that she was in black-out territory, if she was able to walk unaided, the video clears the guy. If she can walk, she’s not so intoxicated that she can’t consent, which means he walks. – LykeX

No, the law doesn’t say that. “If X then Y” does not imply “If not-X then not-Y”. The prosecution could still adduce other evidence that the complainant was too intoxicated to be capable of consent – like the amount they had had to drink – and as Matt says, the defence cannot introduce the topic of whether the complainant was intoxicated; only the prosecution can do so. As I implied, the prosecution still faces the barriers put there by rape culture, but the change in the law is undoubtedly an improvement: I can’t think of any circumstances in which it would make it harder to get a conviction.

to add on to what I said in response previously, it also should have NO bearing whatsoever on the issue of rape, since that is about consent of the ACTION of sex itself.

If I tell you: “Sure, I’ll give you a ride home from the party.” Then witnesses see you leaving with me voluntarily, hell even happily with smiles, then I rape you in my car, of what relevance is the earlier scene to that?

If the tape did not exist, then the prosecution could not have argued that she was unable to consent, so therefore the video is not useful to them.

Nick Gotts:

the defence cannot introduce the topic of whether the complainant was intoxicated; only the prosecution can do so

But surely a video of the woman walking unaided could be introduced by the defense as a response to a prosecution case based on the inability to consent. Indeed, a video might be considered more reliable than a witness. If the prosecution tries to make a case based on how much she had to drink, the defense can point to the video and say “but clearly she wasn’t that affected by it”.

Nick Gotts:

“If X then Y” does not imply “If not-X then not-Y”

Sure, but the defense doesn’t have to prove “not-Y”. The defense doesn’t have to prove that she could consent, they just have to sow doubt about the prosecution’s claim that she couldn’t. The video would do that.

@Ichthiyc
Go back and read again. I’m not making any argument. I’m talking about a hypothetical argument the defense might make. Don’t attribute those opinions to me.

Matt,
What people are saying is that “seen being falling-down drunk = incapable of consenting = rape” is not the flip side of “seen walking steadily = capable of consenting = not rape.”

If she had been able to walk steadily, then the defense could have used that as an argument that she was capable of consent, and – as she didn’t remember what had happened – argued that she did consent. Ergo, not-rape.

Are you really arguing that being so drunk you are not able to understand what is going on, does not mean you cannot consent,

No, I’m saying she shouldn’t have to be passed out or unable to walk before people acknowledge she couldn’t give consent. She could be walking and talking fine while drinking but still unable to consent.

or that having even one drink means you cannot consent ?

Yes. Because you can’t make rules about whether or not they look drunk or affected, and you can’t make rules about “3 drinks means able to consent, but 4 means unable”, so that’s the only conclusion I can come to.

Seriously, the “she was just buzzed, had consensual sex and reported it as rape due to regret/shame/vindictiveness” is a myth, so I don’t really see the problem with where I draw the line.

Regardless of the potential loophole in these new rules, I think you should apologize to Caine and Pteryxx particularly for accusing them of wanting a rapist to go free, rather than be convicted.

Your ridiculous quibble with their choice of words or criticism of the new rules does not fucking give you the right to accuse rape victims of wanting rapists to be acquitted, you asshole. That was incredibly insensitive of you, and any sense of victory you might have over being successful in your pedantry should ring hollow at best.

I don’t care if you think you’re “right.” You have hurt people, and you should apologize.

If I understand you, you’re criticizing the idea that “since she went with them voluntarily, consent could be assumed”. Correct?

I agree with you. That’s a terrible argument to make. I’m quite happy that these new rules apparently rule out the defense making that argument. I’m not making that argument myself. I was talking about how the defense might make such an argument, how these rules now make that impossible and what other arguments the defense might then make instead.

The issue with “she is seen being unable to walk steadily, therefore she couldn’t have consented” is that it hints that if she had been able to walk steadily, then consent could have been assumed.

Which is wrong. While her inability to walk does imply that she was too drunk to consent,
(1) She could have been too drunk to consent and been capable of walking steadily, and
(2) She could have been sober enough to consent, been capable of walking steadily and still not consented.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, basically. The issue with this case is that it – intentionally or not on the part of the prosecution – makes a precedent-based argument of “she could walk steadily and doesn’t remember what happened, therefore she probably consented” more likely. Which is dangerous.

it doesn’t matter if you thought it was personally directed to you, or not, it is a response to the argument made, period.

Well, call me crazy, but I just figured that since you were responding to something I said and saying “how do you know…”, you were responding to me and I didn’t want to leave that stain on my jacket. If you were simply criticizing the argument, then I think we’re in agreement.

This is absolutely true. Juries can be convinced that people didn’t think what they thought or see what they saw pretty easily. But boy, a video, now that’s evidence. You know how when people say “That’s just circumstantial evidence!” ? The other kind of evidence is direct evidence. A video is direct evidence, whatever its purpose. So a savvy defense attorney could easily make any video of a woman walking without assistance into a bigger deal than her saying she was so intoxicated she couldn’t consent.

]Matt
You really do need to apologize for the harm you’ve done. Do you even care how you affected Caine and possibly any other survivors who were reading?

Bloody hell! I go and do something else and a whole load of people I usually agree with are at each other’s throats.

I am not, deliberately not, going to take up individual points or nuances but if I may I will restate in plain language what the legal position is in England & Wales. Things do not happen perfectly because some lawyers are chancers and some judges are a little set in their ways. Change needs not just new law but time to understand what the change means and, as necessary, a firm prod to those who have not grasped it yet. In other words it is a process.

* as far back as the 1970s, I think, it was regarded as bad practice to use a woman’s sexual history either to discredit her as a witness or to suggest that “after all that she would not have noticed being raped” but the law was vague on the point

* about 14 years ago the actual legislation was changed – previous sexual history was not to be used without express permission from the presiding judge: after about 5 years the Home Office did a study and discovered that – surprise! – a subset of very expensive Defence Counsel were up to their old tricks and a few of the judges were letting them get away with it. Very firm instructions were issued and things got a little better. Counsel are now supposed to seek permission in writing, in advance, to explore that topic rather than simply wander into it down some apparently innocent daisy chain of cross examination.

* in 2010 the onus of proof on consent shifted: it was now on the accused to prove that (usually) he had real consent and not on the complainant to establish that he or she did not consent.

* none of this has improved the behaviour of the media who get up to the same mullarkey here as they do in the US. Nor is this the promised land – it’s a small step in the right direction whose benefit will be fully felt when we’ve a whole new generation of judges and senior counsel. That doesn’t mean we should not be proud of the changes which Vera Baird QC as Solicitor General – No 2 govt law officer – made to what the law actually says.

* whatever the press may do, think of the lines of defence or obfuscation which can no longer be introduced into the court case – we’d done it before, but she didn’t say no, she’s sexually experienced, I took it for granted that she would, but she’s been drinking with me, but she was wearing a tight/short/shiny dress, and a thousand others which really are part of rape culture.

* as I understand the Evans case, the cctv footage was used by the prosecution not to prove that the woman was too drunk to consent but to prove that Evans cannot reasonably have believed that she did consent. A fine point but an important one. Had there been no footage it would still have been open to the prosecution to find a different way of proving that his belief in consent was unreasonable but they were clearly going to use the most unambiguous evidence they had.

* (This is impressionistic but I got the feeling at the time that Evans had expected to get away with it, as any number of “stars” have in the past. Either he was not well advised by his lawyers or he did not listen to what they said – an impression compounded by the fact that several of his mates promptly published the woman’s name and found themselves, also, on the wrong side of the law.)

Another voice on the chorus of “Matt, please apologize.” Really man, I’m new to posting but have been lurking forever and this is not like you. It’s a stand up thing to be able to apologize for being insensitive, and you’re a stand up person. Let that show.

Portia, it was not just Caine that Matt was calling a liar and would want to let a rapist walk. It was also Pteryxx. Which is a ridiculous charge given what both have revealed of themselves over the past few years.

Janine, Good point. I was unclear. I absolutely think Matt should apologize to Pteryxx as well, and I shold have said so more explicitly in my first sentence. In the second sentence, I was thinking of the emotional effect Caine described, but I have no reason to know that Pteryxx wasn’t just as affected. Anyway, you’re right. Someone above called the accusation inflammatory, and it is also an unconscionable twisting of what Caine and Pteryxx said. Beyond the pale, even if there was a misunderstanding about the laws he was talking about. That’s not how you engage with someone you have no reason to believe is lying.

So we should never go out, have a drink and take someone home?
Or, in fact, have a drink at home over dinner with a significant other?

These are two very different scenarios. To the first: no, you shouldn’t have sex with someone when they’ve been imbibing intoxicating substances. Err on the side of caution not raping anyone, wouldn’t you think?

As to the second, negotiated boundaries are important. Talking about the interactions of people in LTRs goes beyond the scope or purpose of this discussion, I think. I’m open to correction on that point, though.

One can be drunk and still give enthusiastic consent. It is wiser not to, but it will also happen–and in that case, you should always be on the lookout for enthusiastic consent, both your partner’s and yours. When in doubt, don’t. It’s not that difficult. It’s slightly difficult, but not more so than sorting recycles, I reckon. Which is a reasonable bar to clear when you’re talking about inserting/enveloping body parts.

I think it might actually be helpful to establish it as a principle that any amount of alcohol invalidates consent. This wouldn’t make it illegal for people to have sex while under the influence, since if nobody reports a crime, there’s no crime to investigate. It would, however, deny rapists some cover.
If you’re worried about being falsely accused, then simply don’t sleep with people who’ve been drinking: Problem solved. We seriously limit the plausible denial of rapists at the cost of a minor inconvenience.

I haven’t thought this through completely, so I’m open to counter-arguments. I freely recognize that this would take a major cultural shift to accomplish, perhaps to the point where the cultural shift itself would make such legislation unnecessary. It would certainly clash with current norms for alcohol consumption.

Isn’t that just rape culture all over? The immediate leap to “buuut if you make it harder for rapists, no one will ever be able to have sex ever again!” sort of thing? Way back at the start of “ElevatorGate” the very first MORNING that Rebecca Watson posted her video, people were already saying “but but buuuut if people can’t hit on women how will humanity survive?!?!”

The regularity and predictability of that sort of thing points to either a giant conspiracy where people are handed out pamphlets to know what tired old cliches to trot out, or it points to a culture where those tired old cliches are picked up as an organic part of being a member of that culture.

Speaking as someone who comes from a background of Mormonism, I can tell you that consumption of alcohol is used to blame the victims, not to establish that a rape has taken place. I know that’s not how you mean, but I don’t see how your suggestion is at all workable.

My boyfriend and I usually enjoy a drink together while watching a movie, and then moving on to intimacy. I think that more education about how predators use alcohol is what’s needed, so that the culture can change in that way.

Portia, it was not just Caine that Matt was calling a liar and would want to let a rapist walk. It was also Pteryxx. Which is a ridiculous charge given what both have revealed of themselves over the past few years.

It seemed odd to me that both would be saying that, which is why I initially assumed they were not making themselves clear. Both repeated their initial argument, which rather suggests they meant what they said. And if they meant what they said, they were saying Evans should not have been convicted. Neither has come back and admitted they misunderstood have they ? Surely if their misunderstanding was genuine they should have done. I notice some here think I should apologise, but those people seem to think Caine and Pteryx do not. Well fuck that double standard.

@231
After being told, quite belligerently, that they were lying on a rape thread? They’re just going to come back and clear up a misunderstanding?
Yeah, seeing as how I can’t even understand exactly where they were lying (I read the comments), I don’t think their apologies of any kind are required here.
Clarification, maybe, but no apologies. Not from them, by any stretch.

For pointing out Caine and Pteryx were arguing that Evans should not have been convicted and thus be freed ? They did say that. I have not seen anything from them accepting that when they said that it was in the misunderstanding of the law in the UK, so why should I accept the arguments that they did misunderstand. If they misunderstood, they would have said so.

I notice some here think I should apologise, but those people seem to think Caine and Pteryx do not. Well fuck that double standard.

that double standard is only in your mind.

This is NOT the first time I’ve called you an ass, and you seem to be making sure it won’t be the last.

why not try and fix it? Why not just say “sorry for the misunderstanding, will try to work harder, etc.” Does it cause you physical pain to admit that you were wrong? Is it a deliberate imposition on you to stop trying to play “they said it first!” as a child might in defense?

It’s quite remarkable really. Tell me, as I’m genuinely curious…. where do YOU think that level of defensiveness arises from? do you think it in any way is a pragmatic or useful defense mechanism?

This is NOT what they were arguing, and you know it. YOU are the one being dishonest, and I’m not going to play word games with you.

Let me make it as clear as possible for you, so you stop this idiocy.

1. Both said that there were problems with using evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.
5. Had Evans not been convicted he could not have been imprisoned, and thus would be free.

that’s just it, while you were correct on the legal issue, you were ignorant of why they were making the arguments they did make, and when informed that indeed it was an obvious case of miscommunication, instead of apologizing for the rhetoric you used in attack, you double down… even NOW!

sorry, but if you can’t see how much of an ass that makes you, I pity you.

Fuck you for dismissing the real and damaging effects of your wanton and callous accusations. There is no reasonable reading of what they said that would result in thinking they were deliberately lying. Much less saying that guy shouldn’t have been convicted.

that’s just it, while you were correct on the legal issue, you were ignorant of why they were making the arguments they did make, and when informed that indeed it was an obvious case of miscommunication, instead of apologizing for the rhetoric you used in attack, you double down… even NOW!

Well thank you for accepting I was correct.

I was willing to accept it was a misunderstanding. If you look back, you will see I first suggest that to them. Both made the same argument again. Now please show me where either admits they misunderstood, and got it wrong.

1. Both said that there were problems with using evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.

Do you see that 1 and 4 are not the same things AT ALL?
They didn’t say the evidence shouldn’t have been used.
The only reasonable explanation to your behavior at this point is that you are so obsessed with your rightness that you cannot stop deliberately misinterpreting what they said. Stop it.

DON’T YOU GET IT? I understand why you think you are “right”, but what you really are is an asshole because you are deliberately conflating the argument that the level of intoxication should not, in a moral or legal sense, be a factor in an accused rapist establishing reasonable belief of consent AND your made-up argument that this necessarily means that the evidence should not have been used to convict Evans.

Thank you for that, Chris.
Matt’s insistence on needing some sort of evidence in a case (because victim testimony means nothing, right) has been bothering me, and I think you clarified it for me: if going to the he-said/she-said argument is a bad thing, then obviously there’s a mind-set that believes that women may often-times lie about being raped, and thus her testimony against his isn’t good enough. And video evidence is needed (so when there isn’t any to be had, then the victim’s word is insufficient). This line of thinking bothers me.
Granted, in real life, it probably isn’t good enough because Rape Culture, but…

Now please show me where either admits they misunderstood, and got it wrong.

It has been explained to you why they haven’t returned. You were even referred to the thread where Caine talks about the impact your accusations had on her. Yet you ignore that. The decent response is not “Well they should come back and grovel to me for an unintentional mistake!” The decent response is “Holy fuck I’m so sorry I hurt you! Whatever my point was is way less important than that.”
This should not have to be scripted for you.

You brought up a rules change in a country in which Caine and Pteryxx do not live, in the context of a rape case with which Caine and Pteryxx were not familiar, and rather than give them any kind of benefit of the doubt you just go ahead and accuse them of lying and wanting rapists to be acquitted.

I have been lurking all day. Matt definitely needs to apologize. Matt, you acted like a mansplaining shithead over a really simple misunderstanding. You went from slightly annoyed to being *super*defensive and calling people who aren’t liars lairs in like, 2 comments, flat. It was fucking ridiculous. You acted fucking ridiculous.

Interesting, though, that you just disappeared RIGHT after people pointed out how wrong you were. You just went POOF! Convenient.

You brought up a rules change in a country in which Caine and Pteryxx do not live, in the context of a rape case with which Caine and Pteryxx were not familiar, and rather than give them any kind of benefit of the doubt you just go ahead and accuse them of lying and wanting rapists to be acquitted.

Yet both assumed the rule change was a bad idea. At first I thought it was them not understanding, but they repeated the same argument that the rule change was a bad idea. At the stage I can either accept they know what they are talking about, or assume they are ignorant. I chose to assume they were not stupid. It seems what I should have done is assume they are stupid colonials without a fucking clue.

Just to be clear, Matt: You are wrong.
You are wrong to lob nasty, unfounded accusations at rape survivors and then demand that if they want retraction that they come back and apologize to you. There is nothing right about that.

1. Both said that there were problems with using evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.

I too did not see how 4 logically followed from 1.
Problems with using a certain type of evidence does not imply a desire to automatically not-convict. Problems with using a certain type of evidence means there’s a problem with using that type of evidence. Period.
If that kind of evidence is not used, there are other ways to achieve a conviction. Which may not happen but does not imply a desire not to convict.
To say that such evidence should not have been used means such evidence should not be necessary to convict him, that is – other evidence (oh, say, victim statements – but wait, women lie about rape all the fucking time, right?) should be proposed.

(Yes, I’m glad there was a conviction in that case. But it does set a rather bad precedent for how similar evidence can be used in other cases, even if introduced by the prosecution. Evidence introduced by the prosecution can still be picked apart by the defense, and rather handily, too, if the lawyer is astute enough, so there’s plenty of room for misusing this law.)

Yet both assumed the rule change was a bad idea. At first I thought it was them not understanding, but they repeated the same argument that the rule change was a bad idea. At the stage I can either accept they know what they are talking about, or assume they are ignorant. I chose to assume they were not stupid.

Because a misunderstanding can’t survive two comments? You had every reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. They have track records.

Oh my god, I’m just now reading this thread, and all I can do is yell. I am aware that it will not do any good, but please indulge me the moment.

Holy shit, Matt, you are not usually like this. They are saying that there should not be automatically implied consent in every case except when you can prove the victim is physically incapable of providing consent. Do you see the difference?

What you’re saying is that if she says she didn’t give consent, and he said she did, the jury should
automatically acquit if she is found to have been capable of making decisions at all.

Wrong. That the rape itself should be the evidence, not the intoxication.

YES THAT RIGHT THERE. What Janine said.

To argue against the use of the video evidence to establish inability to consent is to argue Evans should not have been convicted. Which is what I am saying some here have said but others tell me they have not.

Oh my god no. It’s arguing that the rationale used should have been the rape, not the visual cues of intoxication.

Had the prosecution not used the video evidence, Evans would not have been convicted as there was not sufficient evidence to convict him otherwise.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that all other available evidence (like HER TESTIMONY) is considered to be insufficient. That is what Caine and Pteryxx were trying to point out to you.

Both said that there were problems with using evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.

Fuck no, they are saying that the prosecution used a shitty standard to convict him, and should have used other evidence. LIKE HER TESTIMONY. Because the evidence they did use is faulty. Would you applaud a conviction of, say, a thief, convicted because he was wearing a red hat and “everyone knows” all thieves wear red hats? Or would you say “hey, nice that you got one this time, but this whole “wearing a red hat means you’re a thief” thing is a bad precedent and a stupid, inaccurate marker of a thief, and a lot of thieves will go free if that’s the standard you use”? That’s what they did.

As I see it the point is whether the law should be phrased so that that’s the case.
I don’t see anything in Pteryxx’s or Caine’s posts that say that the evidence shouldn’t have been used in this particular case. I see them talking about a higher-level point; should this be the way that cases in general are prosecuted? Is the law a good one? Will it have unintended consequences?
I also see you completely ignoring those points in favor of outrageous accusations of dishonesty, which are both unfounded and hurtful in the extreme. Then you’ve finished it off with an insinuation that because they refused to put up with anymore of your trauma-triggering bullshit, that somehow makes you right.

You’re way the fuck off-base here and since there’s very little chance that you’ll back down, I suggest that you just walk away and lay low for a while.

Seriously, do you think you are Pope Jesus Ayn Einstein, infallible and incapable of being wrong? And the rest of us are a bunch of ignorant children who need your not-do-gentle correction? Maybe you do, but to the rest of us you’re just another asshole talking down to people and intentionally hurting people rather than admit that other people have a point that you didn’t consider when you decided to pontificate.

Oh, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me how Evans could have been convicted without using the video evidence.

No one has been able to answer that, yet that is key to all this. Telling, very telling.

What is telling is that you seem to also think that the victim’s testimony isn’t worth shit, to the point that you’re not even willing to admit that it might be a good idea if such a thing should be taken into account.

Matt Penfold, you should have taken a step back a long time ago on this thread and wondered just what other people are seeing that you are not. Perhaps* you _are_ actually making an absolute arse of yourself.

Next time I will not bother with the truth. It seems unimportant to too many people around here.

You don’t have truth. What you have is more akin to Truthiness. By your logic, video evidence is way more important than what the victim says. By your argumentation tactics, YOU ALWAYS THINK THE VICTIM IS LYING. I have officially labeled you a Victim Disbeliever.

Yep. The key is that Caine and Pteryxx must acknowledge that Matt is right and they were wrong (even though Cain and Pteryxx were in no way wrong), because otherwise his poor ego will be bruised and he just won’t be able to live with himself.

Who cares about the feelings of Caine & Pteryxx? Who cares about the feeling of rape victims in a discussion of rape?

Caine & Pteryxx weren’t 100% clear and 100% perfect.

Oh, no! We can’t have that, can we?

Even though, perhaps, just perhaps, this subject of rape might be a bit difficult for rape victims to discuss. So maybe they aren’t perfect when discussing the subject of rape.

Holy shit, Matt, you are not usually like this. They are saying that there should not be automatically implied consent in every case except when you can prove the victim is physically incapable of providing consent. Do you see the difference?

I see the difference, but I don’t accept that is what they were saying. Especially since the context was discussing changes in UK rules in rape trials, and I had already said the onus was on the accused to show there were reasonable grounds to consider there was consent. The prosecution case was that because the victim was so intoxicated there were no reasonable grounds for the accused to believe there was consent. The test being that a reasonable person would realise that someone in the women’s condition was in no position to consent.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that all other available evidence (like HER TESTIMONY) is considered to be insufficient. That is what Caine and Pteryxx were trying to point out to you.

It also what I pointed out. The woman’s testimony was considered insufficient, as she had no recollections of the rape and little of events earlier in the evening. The CPS would not have prosecuted without the video evidence, so to argue it should not have been used is to argue Evans should not have been prosecuted.

It was not a case of getting a conviction using the video evidence, or get a conviction using other evidence. It was use the video evidence or don’t prosecute. That is what I did not understand. Why would Caine and Pteryx prefer no conviction to convicting Evans on the video evidence ? I did not understand why, so at first I questioned them. Both again suggested they would prefer to have seen Evans not prosecuted rather than use the video evidence. Which you have to admit, given their history, is odd.

The fact that the woman had little recollection of events during the evening and the rape itself should be a telling fact in and of itself… A very telling fact.
If I recall correctly, one is supposed to remember giving consent. So, no memory = no reliable consent = no consent = rape. That was simple.

Hey Matt, gosh, is it so fucking difficult to understand the miscommunication and how they could seem to be talking about one thing that you just can’t manage to make fit in your pretty little box of how you personally understand the legal defense system to work?

Well, gosh, Matt, maybe it’s because people here are, like, not actually lawyers, congressmembers, or members of parliament and so aren’t talking about how best to make a defense in the imperfect system with its imperfect rape culture that we’re stuck with today, but rather are making aspirational statements on how they would like the system to work in the future.

In the future, it would be nice if we didn’t have to contend with a system and a culture wherein women are assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise. For no other crime is this level of scrutiny and hoop-jumping considered par for the course. We don’t look to theft victims and go, oh, how can you prove that you didn’t just give him that stereo? We don’t look to murder victims and go, oh, how can you prove that you weren’t enlisting your murderer’s aid in an assisted suicide? But for rape victims, in all legal systems, there is this assumption of lying until proven not a slut. Still hoops that rape victims have to jump through to prove that they are the right kind of victims.

When it’s a close call that someone straight up incapacitated is considered to have been violated, but only because of a change of laws that marks something diseased and wrong with society. And that something is the rape culture. I understand that the system and the culture is what it is and judicial systems have to do the best they can within those frameworks, but for those of us who have been raped and live still today with those flashbacks (which would be a very large number of the people on this site, myself included), good enough is still FAR from good enough.

Arguing that Caine and Pteryxx are lying and want a rape victim to go free entirely because they, IN THEIR ROLES AS RANDOM PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET INSTEAD OF BRITISH MPs, think that the rules don’t go nearly far enough in making ALL rapes prosecutable and removing the intense stigma for rape victims who choose to do the right thing and try and stop their rapists (most rapists are serial rapists who rely on social support to continue their sprees).

If I had decided to prosecute my rapist to stop him, there would have been no way in hell I would have been successful. Same with my partner with her separate rapists. Same with an overwhelming number of rape victims. And a large part of it has to do with how sexual consent is seen as optional at best at every level and the way those who have the courage to prosecute are set up as lying unless proven otherwise in a way that no other crime victim is.

It sounds like the UK legal system is taking steps in the right direction and that’s good. That’s very good, but it’s not everything and what the legal system is not nor should not be the be-all, end-all of dialogue surrounding the issue.

Both again suggested they would prefer to have seen Evans not prosecuted rather than use the video evidence.

No, they didn’t.

Caine: (bold mine)

Yes, it’s good one rapist was convicted. However, he was convicted due to the particular amount of alcohol the victim consumed. This is *not* a good thing. That is still part of rape culture. A woman who had one drink less may have resulted in an acquittal. Do you see?

Let me substitute from my stupid analogy:

Yes, it’s good one thief was convicted. However, he was convicted due to the red hat he was wearing This is *not* a good thing. That is still part of colored clothes culture. A woman who was robbed by someone not wearing a red hat may have resulted in an acquittal. Do you see?

It sounds like the UK legal system is taking steps in the right direction and that’s good.

Well, others do not agree. I took exception to people who should be better telling me that one of the best things to happen to increase rape convictions in the UK for years, if not decades, was actually harming those chances.

Why would Caine and Pteryx prefer no conviction to convicting Evans on the video evidence ?

You keep saying that. Am I the only one having trouble finding the place where they actually said anything remotely like that?

The closest I can find is Caine’s comment at #96 and that even includes the statement “Yes, it’s good one rapist was convicted.” Clearly, Caine is not in any way saying that this rapist should go free.

Both again suggested they would prefer to have seen Evans not prosecuted rather than use the video evidence

1. Both said that there were problems with using evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.
5. Had Evans not been convicted he could not have been imprisoned, and thus would be free.

It is really quite simple.

Do you want to explain you inability to understand ?

Hey, um, Matt, you do realize that this logic progression actually shows quite clearly how Caine and Pteryxx were NOT saying that Evans should be set free, right?

From 1 to 2, you ignore their ACTUAL STATEMENTS which note that they took issue with the intoxication law for NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH. Hell, they didn’t even argue that the law should have been done away with or that it wasn’t a step up in prosecution. Noting how current laws and attitudes can be abused and why those laws are not adequate as a stopping point is an important civic task and is not the same as arguing they must be eliminated.

Your leap in logic is to jump from someone saying: “hey, police departments in the USA seem to be filled with a lot of corruption and are doing a lot of bad things” to: “police must be eliminated” to: “every single criminal in jail must be set free and is innocent of their crimes”.

It does not follow. It’s patently illogical. And it makes you look like a complete tool to argue that it does when you yourself spell out the progression of logic and its extreme jump in assumption.

I don’t know how it works where you live, but here where I live, the world is not black and white, not all critiques of middle-ground stop-gap measures are from the side of the douchebags, and oh yeah:

Rape victims who were not at all intoxicated at the time of their rapes (raise my own hand) might have some personal reflection on how that might have affected their attempts to prosecute their own rape.

If I was as prone to illogical leaps as you, I would now accuse you of arguing that I must have made up my rape because I wouldn’t have been able to prosecute under that law, but see, unlike you, I am not a complete tool who has forgotten the first rule of holes.

Could it be that people thought that there might be unintended consequences in other trials because you left out an important piece of information which made it sound like the defense could use video to show that a woman was capable of consent? Read my #183.

Yes, it’s good one thief was convicted. However, he was convicted due to the red hat he was wearing This is *not* a good thing. That is still part of colored clothes culture. A woman who was robbed by someone not wearing a red hat may have resulted in an acquittal. Do you see?

No.

The onus in the UK in a trial for rape or sexual assault is for the accused to show they had reasonable grounds for believing the victim consented, if they are going to to use a defence of consent.

Someone who is very drunk is considered legally unable to consent in the UK law. Not just for sex, but generally. The prosecution case was that the victim was so drunk that it was not reasonable for Evans to believe she had consented. Remember, she was sufficiently drunk she had no recollection of events in the hotel, and very little of events prior to that.

Evans could not show he had reasonable grounds for believing the woman consented. Hence he was convicted.

Could it be that people thought that there might be unintended consequences in other trials because you left out an important piece of information which made it sound like the defense could use video to show that a woman was capable of consent? Read my #183.

MattBecause if the woman says she did not consent, or does not remember consenting, then she should be believed. (See my previous point about remembering to consent.)
Anything else, including Evans proving that he could reasonably believe he had consent, is saying she’s a liar and that’s just wrong.

So you did not leave out the information that only the prosecution can introduce video evidence pertaining to the level of intoxication to indicate whether or not she was competent to consent to sex? You did write that? The reason I ask is that this is where the misunderstanding came into it and you decided Caine and Pteryxx were lying because they did not have this piece of information that you did not provide.

Also, if a piece of evidence is introduced, it is also fair game to the other side. All the prosecution must do is introduce; the defense is still free to rip it to shreds. So Ogvorbis’ point still stands, in situations where the prosecution introduces evidence showing the victim was capable of walking but did not consent. How is the defense going to go after that tidbit?

That’s all from me, time zones and early mornings await.
Thank you to all here, present and not, who are an inspiration to me.

Matt,
Arguing that something did something good but from a flawed premise that can just as easily be wielded (especially in the context of the rape culture) against other victims to dissuade them from moving forth an accusation if they feel they can not meet that standard is not arguing that the something good must be a bad thing in and of itself without any other context.

As I stated already, these rule changes would not have helped in the 1 rape committed against me or the 2 rapes committed against my partner. And we would continue to have been unable to go to the police to stop our very likely serial rapists (most rapists are serial rapists). And this will not change unless our culture and our legal system stops assuming that rape victims lie more than any other type of crime victim about the crimes committed against them. If a theft victim knew who their attacker was, what they wore, exactly what they did, could identify them perfectly, we consider that hard evidence, but for rape victims it’s always “oh, you lying slut, you’re just covering up your unwanted sexual dalliance by going through a traumatic court experience where you will be sent multitudes of death threats for ‘ruining’ some guys’ life”.

Matt,
This has been said before, but I add my voice to the antipodean contingent:
you totally got the wrong end of the stick in your #92, which set you up for the unbelievable charge of dishonesty in #99.

You seem to think that your thoughts are expressed in an unassailable, crystal clear fashion, and that everyone else is being belligerent and dishonest.

That simply is not the case, and you had no cause to cruelly [given the topic of this thread and what you know about Caine and Pterryx) fling accusations of lying at Caine and Pterryx.

Also, if a piece of evidence is introduced, it is also fair game to the other side. All the prosecution must do is introduce; the defense is still free to rip it to shreds. So Ogvorbis’ point still stands, in situations where the prosecution introduces evidence showing the victim was capable of walking but did not consent. How is the defense going to go after that tidbit?

Why would the prosecution introduce such evidence ? It does nothing to support their case the victim did not consent. If the prosecution was to argue the victim was unable to consent, and a video existed that showed her capable of walking then the defence would be able to introduce it as evidence, to counter the prosecution case. But the prosecution would need to have evidence to support their case that consent could not be given, and it would be for them to decide whether their evidence outweighs the video evidence. Under UK law the defence would have had to give the video to the prosecution.

Can the defense decide to introduce, in a hypothetical case, video evidence that bears on the capacity of a drunk woman to consent to sex?

And none of us here, including me, are trying to tell you that we would rather have a rapist let off than use available evidence. I am trying to find out whether or not the defense could conceivably benefit from a video showing a woman able to consent.

in a large fry/sauce pan, put 1/4 cup olive oil and 1 tablespoon of butter, put heat on very low at first to melt the butter. While that’s happening…

in a mixing bowl, combine your standard flour (NOT high grade), salt, and baking powder. stir with your fingers until mixed. If you want, a tablespoon of ginger powder is a nice twist to add at this point.

get a measuring cup, and crack your medium egg into it. Add your 1/2 cup of water to that, and beat together with a fork until the egg is well blended with no big chunks left (smooth?). pour that mixture into the bowl with your flour mix. Put your milk in the cup, and add your vanilla flavor to that, then dump that into the flour mix as well. toss your blueberries in the bowl now too.

here’s the tricky part: stir everything together, with the goal of making sure everything is WET, but not that you have removed all the lumps, if that makes sense. you want to distribute the ingredients, but leave the overall batter with lumps. don’t overstir; if you stir until the batter is all completely smooth and even, you will end up with flat chewy pancakes. those little lumps of flour help keep it fluffy as you cook.

Ok, now increase the heat on your pan to medium, and swirl the pan to mix the olive oil butter. WAIT until the pan is fully at medium heat, there are no bubbles appearing in the butter. IOW, wait until *just* before the butter starts to brown.

take your batter, and spoon it/pour it into about 3-4″ sized puddles in your pan. If you want, you can drip a little of the batter in between to make tiny pancakes to fill the spaces, as otherwise you will always find some batter left over.

make sure the oil/butter mix is getting underneath your cakes as you cook them, and cook them until you see bubbles forming on the top of your cake, AND you see the edges of the cake are dry. it should hold together as you try to flip them, if not, you need to cook it slightly longer… if the edges are going brown, that’s too long.

Ok, now tilt the pan towards the direction of the pancake you want to flip, get underneath it on the side, with the spatula facing away from you, and flip it by turning your wrist quickly counterclockwise. should be a nice clean flip that way.

after you flip your cakes, take a small pad of butter and put it on top of each cake while the other side is cooking. If you have a hot stove, or electric, you might want to turn the heat down about half a notch here. wait a couple of minutes, then gently lift the edge of the first cake to see if it is brown underneath yet. remove from heat when they are fully browned underneath.

put whatever you want on top. Hard to beat just pure maple syrup in my book, but brown sugar with fresh ground cinnamon is also good.

if you plan to use the same pan for another batch, add a bit more olive oil and fresh butter, or else they will brown too quickly.

use a bit more oil and slightly higher heat if you want crunchy, bubbly-looking outside crusts (like a donut), less oil and slightly lower heat for smooth surface soft pancakes.

I think the trivialisation of rape and lack of realisation how terrible the consequences for the victim are, are also part of the real problem.
If the coverage of a rape trial included all these little interviews with survivors, counsellors etc. tracing what we think the victim can expect to go through – might that not make people think before they cry about the rapists? And change the perception of how important it is to prevent rape?

I rather think that Matt is overlooking the implications of the result of this trial. If the new rules about “intoxication means no consent possible” worked so wondrously well in convicting Evans, how come they failed so that his co-accused was acquitted? And why has he overlooked the peripheral involvement of Evans and McDonald’s mates who tried to film the attack through the window?

Personally, I’d take the mere fact of those other men’s foreknowledge, and eager complicity, as compelling evidence that consent was never a consideration for the attackers. From a prosecution point of view, this looks pretty strong all by itself. But they wanted to test out the “new” approach on intoxication. And came up with a 50/50 conviction/acquittal result.

If you can’t get an unequivocal result even with this evidence backed up by this approach, I’d suggest that rape culture is alive and well. This *is* a step forward – but it’s a baby step.

As I stated already, these rule changes would not have helped in the 1 rape committed against me or the 2 rapes committed against my partner.

It was never thought they would help every case. Just that it would remove some of the nastier defence tactics from the courtroom and provide a better standard of justice and increase the chances of securing a conviction without increasing the risk of a wrongful conviction. The rule with regards consent is not actually going to impact very few cases, since most rapes do not involve the issue of whether the victim was capable of providing consent (except where the victim is under 13, when there is no defence allowed of consent) but rather whether consent was given or not. What will hopefully make more of a difference to victims to the move to stop the defence putting the victim on trial. Basically unless the prosecution makes it part of their case, the victims character will not be open to questioning by the defence.

Hey Matt, since you love logic puzzles so much, try this one on for size:

You: Standing up for the honor of an inanimate legal system in no physical or emotional danger from polite critiques from a standpoint of aspirational arguments not made by anyone with any ability to affect said legal system

+

Actual rape victims: Being treated like shit by you personally in defense of this inanimate object because you are too stupid to realize that sometimes the “do not agree” box in surveys can mean “because the argument doesn’t go far enough”

+

The Context: Of being a thread about how a rape victim undeniably raped still had to jump through endless hoops and is being considered a monster for it.

+

The Context: Groups of human beings such as homosexuals and women having their rights or humanity downplayed in arguments because of the super-importance of non-sentient inanimate concepts such as words.

Why would the prosecution introduce such evidence ? It does nothing to support their case the victim did not consent.

How do you folks deal with that well-known “first pancake” problem? I used to call it the “dog pancake” on account of who was usually happy to eat it, but now that he’s gone it’s become a management issue.

If the prosecution was to argue the victim was unable to consent, and a video existed that showed her capable of walking then the defence would be able to introduce it as evidence, to counter the prosecution case

In other words, if the rapist makes sure that she’s captured on video in a reasonably sober state and only gets her drunk later, in private, he not only avoids giving the prosecution a tape demonstrating lacking ability to consent, he actually gains a tape that he could use in case any other evidence should surface that the prosecution might try to use to establish lacking ability to consent. A smart rapist could use this to his advantage.

Or the possibility I mentioned earlier: the tape shows the woman leaning heavily on the man. The prosecution introduces it as evidence that she was too drunk to give consent. The defense argues that the man innocently mistook her leaning on him as affectionate physical contact. The tape becomes evidence in favor of the defendant believing there was consent.

Matt, you are hurting real people. Survivors. Some of us have been through the meat grinder of the justice system; some of us have been too afraid, or too dominated, or too afraid, or too sure of our own complicity that we haven’t gone through the justice system. And you are hurting them. You are hurting me. Please stop.

Can the defense decide to introduce, in a hypothetical case, video evidence that bears on the capacity of a drunk woman to consent to sex?

Not unless the prosecution has made capacity to consent part of their case. If they have, then the defence would be free to introduce evidence of their own, although they might have to disclose some to the prosecution before the trial. A video would have to disclosed, for example.

If the prosecution has not made ability to consent part of their case, then how intoxicated the victim is, is off-limits to the defence. They could ask the judge for permission to introduce such evidence, but it would be highly unusual and unlikely to be granted.

What?!? It wouldn’t help every single case? But I was so sure that would be the case, what with you cuddling this law change as if it was a calming personal object and straight-up attacking people who noted that this law wouldn’t help with every case as if they were personally arguing that rapists should run free.

Gosh, if that’s the case, then, do you just kinda think that you owe some people some fucking apologies already, you incorrect, oversmug asshole?

Just that it would remove some of the nastier defence tactics from the courtroom and provide a better standard of justice and increase the chances of securing a conviction without increasing the risk of a wrongful conviction.

Great. Of course, it won’t fully do that, because all of these rule changes are a dance against the metagame because we still exist in a diseased culture that still assumes rape victims are lying until proven otherwise. But a good step in a positive direction and no one has said otherwise, only noted that it is not going to be the final step in solving the problem.

The rule with regards consent is not actually going to impact very few cases, since most rapes do not involve the issue of whether the victim was capable of providing consent (except where the victim is under 13, when there is no defence allowed of consent) but rather whether consent was given or not. What will hopefully make more of a difference to victims to the move to stop the defence putting the victim on trial. Basically unless the prosecution makes it part of their case, the victims character will not be open to questioning by the defence.

Again, it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not complete. As you yourself admit.

Evans could not show he had reasonable grounds for believing the woman consented.

What if she hadn’t been drinking at all, and went back to his room voluntarily to have fun sexytimes, but then got creeped out by him and changed her mind and tried to leave, but he overpowered her and raped her anyway?

What would he have done to show he had reasonable grounds for consent? Would the video of her happily going to his room be used to show that he thought he had consent? You’re saying that it might well have. And that would have possibly passed, even though she might have screamed and cried out of the range of the cameras a few minutes later. And would it be ok for you that he would get off scot-free in that instance? Does it bother you at all that, after many cases like this with video evidence of drunkenness, that juries might be primed with the idea that evidence of drunkenness is the gold standard of nonconsent, and if that can’t be shown, that consent is implicit?

It ends up on the bottom of the stack, so by the time you get to it you’re not quite as discriminating about the quality of your pancakes. ;) Or it goes in the trash as a valiant sacrifice for the good of the many.

Man, I want pancakes so bad, but 1)I don’t want to warm up the apartment* and 2)I don’t think I have one single clean dish. Haha.

*My apartment complex is “utilities included” and requires the management switch each season from heat to cooling (and vice versa). There is always about a week delay. It was supposed to be on today but of course there was a problem. Sigh. Spring in downtown Phoenix is closer to summer. :/

I am very, very tempted to go to Denny’s or IHOP before class, though that would require I leave now…and put on pants…

The cops are supposed to investigate accusations, not stop and say “maybe the accuser is a lying bitch? Let’s judge her first, and maybe if we believe her, we’ll bother to do our jobs and actually conduct an investigation.” Jesus but you’re a shitty human being.

Sorry, pancakes. Pancakes have to be smaller than the pan, because otherwise when you try to flip it you’re going to flatten part of the edge. I like cooking one at a time, 8″ pancakes in a 12″ pan. Hugely big and fluffy as hell, infused with butter while cooking, and then as I stack them I add a little butter in between the layers.

I don’t believe in pancakes with stuff in the batter, I figure it interferes with the lightness. I LOVE blueberries and other fruit on top of pancakes, or layered in the stack. Plus, if you’re lucky, real maple syrup.

IN trees, carlie, maple syrup grows IN trees. *grins* Of course, if you make everything else from scratch, you can save enough money that the real maple syrup is only really expensive rather than impossible.

IN trees, carlie, maple syrup grows IN trees. *grins* Of course, if you make everything else from scratch, you can save enough money that the real maple syrup is only really expensive rather than impossible.

In case Matt Penfold is still reading and has any shred of empathy left for people who dared to disagree with him, I’m going to say that despite your usual non-involvement in Thunderdome, should you venture there now you would discover that you have triggered two people by being an insufferable pedantic asshole who accuses rape victims of lying and wanting rapists to be acquitted.

But of course none of that is as important as being right. And well done for making it truly be about you and how right you are.

I haven’t been able to comment for a while – reality & I had an argument about my coping skills a few months ago, & I lost.

but I cannot let this go. Caine & Pteryxx, *hugs & support* I am shaking with anger and crying for you both.

Fuck you Matt Penfold. i *HATE* you, with an intensity that horrifies me.

congratulations, you’ve demonstrated that Steubenville is not as low as humans can sink.

Aside:
on every “pharyngulas harsh environment” thread i invariably think, but never post, that the only real problem i see is responding to misunderstanding/miscommunication by literally calling commenters Liars. And Matt Penfold is the commenter i think of, every time. its his MO. sorry for not speaking out earlier.

The cops are supposed to investigate accusations, not stop and say “maybe the accuser is a lying bitch? Let’s judge her first, and maybe if we believe her, we’ll bother to do our jobs and actually conduct an investigation.” Jesus but you’re a shitty human being.

That’s effectively what the cops did when I called about my stalker who tried to break in the house. Which is an even better example. Because I wasn’t raped, it was “just an argument” with my boyfriend, per the cop. He didn’t even bat an eye as he pulled out the “bitchez be lyin” trope as I sat there still shivering in shock from the close call I got.

And even if they had believed me, it probably would have been my fault because I smiled at my stalker as he registered me to vote.

Mind, this was in 2000, and things may have improved, or I may have gotten the most assy of all asshole cops. But despite his handprints being ALL OVER the fucking sliding glass door, they didn’t even do squat. ‘Cause I’m female. And a liar.

I’ve met people before that accuse others of lying because they misunderstand someone else’s statement, then think that a later statement is contradicting the first one because they don’t match the version in their heads, but DAYUM I’ve never seen someone so willing to completely destroy their own credibility, be so incredibly harmful towards others, and just plain act like an utter shit, just to avoid admitting he was wrong and apologizing.

I had blueberry pancakes for breakfast today. With the blueberries in a compote, on top, not in the pancakes. They were nice thick fluffy ones. I had been waiting an hour in the pathologist for my fasting blood test, so I was ravenous and decaffeinated.

When I make pancakes at home I usually do Welsh homestyle – quite thin compared to American ones, but not a crepe. And with currants in the batter, and topped with lemon & sugar. Sometimes I make ricotta pancakes, they are awesome but take pre-planning to shop for.

That’s effectively what the cops did when I called about my stalker who tried to break in the house. Which is an even better example. Because I wasn’t raped, it was “just an argument” with my boyfriend, per the cop. He didn’t even bat an eye as he pulled out the “bitchez be lyin” trope as I sat there still shivering in shock from the close call I got.

I got a verbal “pat on the head” followed by “you’re just hysterical, quit provoking him” and, later, “you can’t press charges or we’ll arrest you”.

I sometimes like those thick American pancakes, but I’m pretty well addicted to the thinner crepe style. Sometimes folded into quarters with sugar inside, sometimes flat or rolled. But always with lashings of lemon.

My pancakes are made gluten-free flour, so they need plenty of eggs to hang together (as my great-great grandmother would have made them, more or less). Very nice with melted cheese and ham, with chopped dill and parsley in the mix. Or plain, in a roll with nutella, is really nice.

For fuck’s sake, Matt, there is a difference between could would and should.
Caine and Pteryxx were using the word with the doubleu. They pointed out that there’s a problem when you have to prove fall-down drunk. That’s all they did.

1. Both said that there were problems with using needing evidence of intoxication such that consent could not be given to get a rape conviction.
2. Evans was convicted using such evidence.
3. Without such evidence Evans would not have been convicted.
4. Therefore to say the evidenced used to convict him should not have been used is to say he should not have been convicted.
5. Had Evans not been convicted he could not have been imprisoned, and thus would be free.

Fixed that for you.

4 is a logical conclusion of 1. There was no other evidence that would have secured a conviction. There would not even have been a trial. It was using the video evidence or not prosecuting.

And that is the problem everybody has been trying to get you to see. That unless you can show that somebody was fall-dow drunk it is still assumed that she consented and is now showing “buyer’s remorse”.

Yet both assumed the rule change was a bad idea.

Wrong. They assumed it was not enough. Because as you have admitted yourself it still means that rapists walk free if that one special piece of evidence is missing.

It seems what I should have done is assume they are stupid colonials without a fucking clue.

Because simply assuming that all ‘meiricuns are stoopid and undereducated is such a novel and enlightened idea.Rule Britania,…

Especially since the context was discussing changes in UK rules in rape trials, and I had already said the onus was on the accused to show there were reasonable grounds to consider there was consent.

Yet you say that had she not been on tape falling down drunk he would have walked free, which means he would have been able to establish that. Which means that this change menas shit, in that respect, because it doesn’t change a thing.

The woman’s testimony was considered insufficient, as she had no recollections of the rape and little of events earlier in the evening.

So, the fact that she was so drunk she lacked memory would have been used for the defence. Her being so intoxicated she could not remember what happened would not have been sufficient to establish that she was too drunk to consent, but sufficient enough to doubt her word that she didn’t consent.
Tell me how that doesn’t still mean that the amount she had been drinking can be used to acquit the rapist.

That is what I did not understand. Why would Caine and Pteryx prefer no conviction to convicting Evans on the video evidence ?

See, that is easy. Your problem of understanding lies with you errecting that gigantic straw-mountainrange of Caine and Pteryxx wanting a rapist to walk free when all they did was to point out that the law isn’t as good as you make it to seem. And it becomes even more disgusting every time you repeat it.

She was believed, hence why the police investigated and found the video evidence, and hence why the CPS prosecuted.

Yet you claim that without the video he would have walked free. That means that her testimony would not have been sufficient. Do you see a problem here? Do you see a problem for a different case that is equal to this one in all things except having the video?

Lyke X

In other words, if the rapist makes sure that she’s captured on video in a reasonably sober state and only gets her drunk later, in private, he not only avoids giving the prosecution a tape demonstrating lacking ability to consent, he actually gains a tape that he could use in case any other evidence should surface that the prosecution might try to use to establish lacking ability to consent. A smart rapist could use this to his advantage.

Last time I looked, hotels had this things called mini-bars. People were also allowed to bring in bags which can be conveniently used to carry bottles…

Giliell
Thank you for that summary. I think you hit a couple of the points I still wanted to make, but this thread being what it is, I think I’ll go ahead and repeat them anyway:
– If the police believed the victim, why did they need video evidence for her ability to consent? Why was her word not enough? (Do you see how that comes off as them believing that she’s still lying?)
– It was mentioned above that they admitted they had sex with her (yes, I say ‘they’, because apparently they both confessed to that. Why is her word that she did not consent enough?
– As it turns out, the video evidence was not the ‘only’ evidence available – there were statements from the parties involved (see mildlymagnificent @346). If the victim’s statements about not remembering to consent and/or not consenting were actually believed, why was any more evidence of her ability to consent needed?

So the prosecution introduces video evidence of the victim’s state of inebriation to prove she could not have consented. But why was this necessary at all? Why is it still not enough for the victim to say, I was raped, and for people to believe xir first/i>, no matter the surrounding circumstances?

Re: The First Pancake
A method I’ve attempted a couple of times (so still in the testing phase) to get a perfect first pancake is to heat up the pan to [temperature at which pancakes are cooked], adding butter somewhere before the final temperature is reached, then letting the butter brown ever so slightly all by its lonesome before adding the batter for First Pancake. I’ve gotten better First Pancakes like this, but it’s a bit hit or miss at the moment. I’ll report back when the method has been refined.

In retrospect, I don’t think (particularly as a man who has never been the victim of rape or anything remotely like it) I should have included the last paragraph of my #177, or subsequent posts on the same legal point, since Matt’s outrageous behaviour was a far, far more important issue. I apologise, particularly to Caine and Pteryxx.

To say that such evidence should not have been used means such evidence should not be necessary to convict him, that is – other evidence (oh, say, victim statements – but wait, women lie about rape all the fucking time, right?) should be proposed.

I agree, and I too will call Matt a Victim Disbeliever.

I think this is unfair. In the current culture the bitches be lying trope is strong. I don’t know how this idea has spread that women lying about rape is somehow commonplace, but that is harmful and wrong. But to assume no one ever lies about it is also wrong. In a he said/she said situation you can’t simply assume either person is telling the truth. It’s up to the Police to determine who is. To call Matt a victim disbeliever simply because he acknowledges that the Police have to prove guilt is unfair.

To be clear, I am not supporting Matt’s treatment of Caine and Pteryxx. He’s being an arsehole, but accusations of victim disbeliever-y (?) are unfair.

thumper1990
I agree that it is entirely possible that sometimes victims may lie about their rape, for whatever reasons. And I agree that Police have to prove guilt.
But.
I have a problem with Matt’s continued insistence that the entire trial may have hinged on the video evidence showing heavy intoxication.
Seeing as there were all sorts of statements involved in the case (see again mildlymagnificent @346), this doesn’t quite ring true, which means that the onus was still placed on the victim to prove she was unable to consent, by providing the video evidence (in this case). Which means that, by insisting this evidence was necessary, I’m getting a very distinct impression that Matt is just not believing the victim (in this case).
Of course, I could be very wrong, in which case I don’t quite understand why the video evidence is so important to Matt and why he can’t seem to understand what is so problematical in having just such a precedent. And I would have to apologize to Matt for calling him a victim disbeliever.

*If a victim is lying, there are ways to get around that. Police should know how to interrogate properly, to find inconsistencies in stories and witness statements and so on and so forth. I hear psychologists are also pretty good at ferreting out untruths and lies from people. So it’s not just he said/she said, there’s a slew of resources for this kind of thing. It shouldn’t all be resting on a piece of evidence whose precedent could be called upon in the future to be misused in the most terrible of ways.

Wait, you take a pancake, sop it in melted butter and then THROW IT AWAY? It’s like I don’t even know you anymore, Ogvorbis.

I usually have too much grease in the pan initially. I don’t want my pancakes saute-ing in butter. I have a nice stainless steel pan that only needs a very thin film of oil for the pancakes — if there is too much the grease tends to brown. So I melt the butter, do the first throw-away, spread and sop the grease, and then cook the rest. I add more butter when it is on my plate.

thumper:
Just to briefly clarify, since I started the “victim disbeliever” thing, I wasn’t being absolutely serious. I was in-artfully trying to show how ridiculous his jump to “you want rapists to go free” was.

As a sidenote, this article basically sums up why I am inclined to always side with the victim. (Especially having been accused of lying about my rape by people who had no business knowing about it).

Wow, that’s one hell of an article. I especially noted the quote from another essay:

Roxane Gay, in her amazing essay The Careless Language of Sexual Violence, examines the case of an eleven-year-old girl gang raped by 18 men:

The Times article was entitled, “Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town,” as if the victim in question was the town itself. James McKinley Jr., the article’s author, focused on how the men’s lives would be changed forever, how the town was being ripped apart, how those poor boys might never be able to return to school.

Oh god, I remember that case! I literally couldn’t believe that some people were trying to blame an 11-year old girl for being gangraped because she “dressed too old.” OMG, how naive I was! this whole thread has been like a performance art piece of rape culture, the treatment of victims and male privilege (ie, I Are Logical, You Are Lying Liar.) Seriously, I’d give Matt an ovation if I wasn’t convinced he actually believes that he’s totally justified. What a shitbag!

terryg The only good thing to come out of this thread is seeing you’re still around. (I don’t mean that to be dismissive of the people doing great, if unresponded to, things. Also pancakes.) I’m sorry it was disturbing for you, too. Take care. I’m rarely in The Lounge nowadays, but I’m sure there are plenty of other people who’d like to know how things are going with regard to you, and your grieving.

Matt Penfold, you owe an apology. Other commenters have already said it a lot better than I can, but I want to delurk to second those who’ve said (or those who’ve seconded those who’ve said) that you’ve been a total shithead on this thread. When you come down from planet Matt Penfold I hope you see how fucked up you’ve been.